415-273-1558 • www

San Francisco, 94119-0966 CA

2001 Survey Results

Steering Committee Dig

Fifth Anniversary Party Fifth Anniversary

Muni Expansion RESCUE MUNI

Transfer

The Newsletter of

July 2001

YES on AB1419

P.O. Box 190966

RESCUE MUNI No. 15, July 2001 .rescuemuni.org Transfer

est Proposed Service Expansion Plan

Phase 2 ....Downtown close up

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Columbus

Washington Square BAR E, F T Lombard ay Montgomery Broadw B3,C

Van Ness ro I-80 e Clay d a rc a b B2 m E

S Pine to

c ry e k m to o tg n n o Union Square M

Japan Town . ta 3rd St. L

Geary e ll s B e N,E,J a w o v P e Laguna

n G w L ,J o ,M ,K rth ,N , , B1,C . 2,3 ta r s te n e C ic iv Major C Rail Hub o Howard St.

. ta s ss e N n a V

G,N 2 J . ta s 2 h rc u h K C ,L Mission St. ,M 16th St. St. Potrero 5,E

Inside: RESCUE MUNI Steering Committee Digest 2 Fifth Anniversary Rescue Muni's Proposed 30 Year

Place Stamp Here Service Expansion Plan 3 Service Expansion Maps 7, 8, 10 Party Support AB1419 (Transbay Term.) 14 Saturday, 9/22/01 Muni Riders' Survey Results 16 Mark your calendar now! Page 24 RESCUE MUNI Calendar 22 Page 1 Steering Committee Digest Membership Form Howard Strassner and Eric Carlson has the latest from our governing body n accordance with RESCUE MUNI Bylaws Schedules: (From Service Expansion Com- We need YOU to help us Rescue Muni. Inone of the following are RM policy unless mittee) Muni should immediately post Join us by mailing this form to P.O. Box 190966, , CA 94119-0966. consented to by a majority of the RM Mem- schedules for "Community" Bus service You can also join online at www.rescuemuni.org. bership present at a General Membership (light blue routes on Muni Map) at stops. Name: Meeting. Endorsement of Candidates or Ballot These reliable services would have much Membership category: Initiatives requires a two-thirds vote. more ridership if potential patrons knew Address: __ $5 Student / Limited Income July 16, 2001: Present, Both: Eric Carlson, when to expect them. They will also feed __ $15 Basic Charlotte Breckenridge, Joan Downey, Dan more riders into future "rapid transit" lines. __ $40 Sustaining Murphy, David Pilpel (by phone), Howard Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon Service: (From Ser- Strassner and Andrew Sullivan. Visitor: Jim vice Expansion Committee) Muni should Phone: __ $100 Contributing Lazarus increase early morning and rush hour ser- Fax: __ Other: $______Steercom: We approved the following vice on the 15, 43 and 29 lines bringing pas- Email: policy positions. sengers to Balboa BART due to evident Rescue Muni may from time to time Cable Cars: (From Metro Committee) We heavy passenger loads. Muni lines you ride: publish membership lists with names oppose the cut in service from every 6 to Excom: only. May we publish your name only every 8 minutes as an illegal violation of We have rented Car 1 for the Anniver- # riders in your household: as a member? Y N the Charter. 4 or 5 cars idling at California sary Party on 9/22, which will be a historic and Drumm is an intolerable portion of a streetcar excursion. Details to follow. Signature: service which only has a maximum if 7 cars The Muni Riders' Survey is done. We I would like to volunteer! Y N in service. We will write a letter express- will announce results at the General Meet- ______ing our strong concern about this issue. ing and in this newsletter. Schedules: (From Metro Committee) Muni We decided that the General Member- Executive Committee SPUR, 312 Sutter, 5th floor (chair: should post schedules on OWL lines im- ship meeting would be a good time to so- Chair: Vacant (Andrew Sullivan acting) Howard Strassner, 661-8786, mediately. To Steercom for ratification. As licit volunteers for specific projects, this an- Vice-Chair: Richard Mlynarik [email protected]) a volunteer effort, Rescue Muni will copy nouncement perhaps at the end of meet- Membership Sec'y: Daniel Murphy Service Expansion discusses ways and laminate schedules based on the offi- ing, inviting those there to approach the Recording Sec'y: Howard Strassner Muni can add service. Meets every cial operating schedule we obtained from following contacts: Corresponding Sec'y: Eric Carlson other Thursday at SPUR, 6:30 PM; con- Muni and post (w/ zip ties) same. Continued on page 21 Treasurer: Joan Downey tact the acting chair. (acting chair: Eric Transfer Coordinators: Carlson, 863-5578, pontneuf@ Charlotte Breckenridge, David Pilpel, earthlink.net) the newsletter of RESCUE MUNI at San Francisco, Calif. Andrew Sullivan, Dan Krause July 2001 - No. 15 POSTMASTER: Send all address Other Rescue Muni Initiatives Editor: Eric Carlson changes to Transfer, RESCUE MUNI, P.O. Steering Committee Membership (chair: Daniel Murphy, Designers: David Vasquez, Andrew Box 190966, San Francisco, CA Chair: Andrew Sullivan 665-4074, [email protected]) Sullivan 94119-0966. Vice-Chair: Daniel Murphy Surveys (chair: Andrew Sullivan, Contributing writers: Andrew Sullivan, © 2001 RESCUE MUNI Charlotte Breckenridge, Eric Carlson, 673-0626, [email protected]) Eric Carlson, Daniel Krause, RESCUE MUNI (Riders for an Efficient, Joan Downey, Richard Mlynarik, David Howard Strassner, Margaret Safe, Consistent, Utilized, and Expedi- Pilpel, Howard Strassner, Dan Krause Any member may form a committee. If Okuzumi tious Muni), founded 1996, is a volun- it meets at least four times per year, Transfer is published (roughly) quarterly teer-run, not-for-profit transit riders’ Standing Committees the committee may request appoint- by RESCUE MUNI, P.O. Box 190966, association. : addresses scheduling and ment of a representative to the Steer- San Francisco, CA 94119-0966. Yearly Hotline: 415-273-1558 reliability of Muni's lines. Meets ing Committee, the policy-making body membership dues are $15 ($5 for lim- www.rescuemuni.org second Wed. of every month, 6 p.m., at of RESCUE MUNI. ited income). First-class postage paid [email protected] Page 2 Page 23 RESCUE MUNI Calendar Proposed Rescue Muni Laminate and post at a bus shelter near you! date event location Service Expansion Plan 7/16, 6 PM RM Executive & Steering Committees SPUR, 312 Sutter, 5th Floor San Franciscans need expanded transit service. Rescue Muni's Service Expansion Com- 7/18, 6 PM RM General Membership Meeting SPUR mittee developed this draft plan to add service citywide. Dan Krause, Andrew Sullivan Survey Results, Service Expansion Plan and Eric Carlson wrote the report; graphics are provided by David Vasquez. 7/26, 6:30 PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR I. INTRODUCTION escue Muni has created this transit ex- includes rail projects that will take many 8/7, 5 PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400 Rpansion plan to address the growing years to build, it also includes 8 lines of rapid 8/8, 6 PM RM Metro Committee SPUR transportation crisis that San Francisco is bus service that can be in operation by 8/9, 6:30 PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR presently experiencing. This crisis will only 2005. Our plan is intentionally a bold one. We 8/20, 6 PM RM Executive & Steering Committees SPUR get worse unless San Francisco chooses to make significant investments in transit im- feel now is the time to lay out San 8/21, 5 PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400 provements and service expansion. San Francisco’s ideal transit system: a system 8/23, 6:30 PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR Francisco is a city with very high density that most people will find so attractive that and limited street space, with many areas they will prefer to take transit instead of 9/4, 5 PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400 not originally designed for automobiles. As driving. Our recommendations are also 9/6, 6:30 PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR San Francisco’s population continues to mindful of constraints to funding, but they 9/12, 6 PM RM Metro Committee SPUR grow and becomes more affluent, more and do not accept today’s levels of transit in- 9/17, 6 PM RM Executive & Steering Committees SPUR more people will choose to drive their cars vestment. The plan is structured in a real- 9/18, 5 PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400 in increasingly maddening traffic - unless istic way that allows for relatively inexpen- sive short-term projects to be completed 9/20, 6:30 PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR there is a practical, convenient and fast al- ternative. under today’s funding environment, while 9/22 Fifth Anniversary Party! TBA The Rescue Muni transit expansion plan it acknowledges that the larger and more Historic Streetcar Excursion is that alternative. We have created this expensive proposals will require additional Further details to follow... 30-year plan to significantly expand all funding sources. modes of rapid transit service in San Fran- To truly achieve all the goals of this plan, 10/2, 5 PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400 cisco, with the goal of providing citywide and to improve transit around the City to 10/4, 6:30 PM RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR service that is much faster, more comfort- "world class," there will need to be a con- 10/10, 6 PM RM Metro Committee SPUR able, and more reliable than the Muni of tinued paradigm shift in regards to our lo- 10/15, 6 PM RM Executive & Steering Committees SPUR today. Our plan uses a combination of rail, cal, state, and national transportation pri- orities. To be clear, we feel strongly that 10/16, 5 PM Municipal Transportation Agency Board City Hall, Rm. 400 rapid bus, historic streetcar, and cable car projects to provide rapid transit coverage much of the funding currently spent on high- 10/18, 6:30P RM Service Expansion Committee SPUR throughout San Francisco, even in areas ways could be used instead to move more where rail investment does not make sense. people more quickly on urban and interur- Please check the web site or Hotline for announcements of special meetings and other It takes advantage of San Francisco’s tran- ban transit services. Plans like ours will help events - there will be many more. If you'd like to sponsor an event, please let us know as sit-first policy to finally allocate sufficient this process of change, in our opinion; we well - call us or fill out the Volunteer Form on the web site. street space to move transit riders more will be asking San Franciscans and their quickly than auto traffic - a much more ef- elected officials to do their part in securing ficient use of the streets. Passengers will large increases in funding for transit. Clothes see results very quickly. While this plan make the Note about this document: This is a summary of the Service Expansion Committee transit expansion plan, initially developed for the SPUR lunchtime forum of 5/31/01. A more detailed Muni rider. version of the plan will be published within the next several months. It is not yet formal Rescue www.rescuemuni.org/tshirt.html Muni policy, but it is likely to be voted on by the Steering Committee soon. Page 22 Page 3 II. TRANSIT NETWORK rail investment, or for corridors where rail to understand this better before next year's our detailed report in this newsletter), and ur plan creates a new rapid transit investment will take many years to imple- survey. continued fleet replacement should also Onetwork for San Francisco, using ment, we are recommending Bus Rapid So is Muni getting better? Yes, it is. This make a big difference, but the hard work by three modes of service. When combined Transit(BRT) service as a quick and low- survey shows real progress since last year, Muni employees to plan and provide qual- with Muni’s current light rail service, this cost improvement. BRT is an innovative and big improvements since Muni's worst ity service will, as always, be the key to con- network will provide fast service to most system of high-speed bus services that pro- days in 1998. But there is still more to be tinued progress. major neighborhoods of the city. We an- vide fast, frequent, reliable service at low done; in transit-first San Francisco, we Note: For space reasons, we are not includ- ticipate that regular buses will serve as cost relative to rail projects. BRT uses a should not declare victory until all of Muni's ing a full report with line analysis in this news- feeder connections or main lines in areas variety of techniques to give buses abso- customers get service that earns an "A" letter, but we will publish one shortly on the where these options are not practical. lute priority over auto traffic, making it grade. Service expansion will help here (see web at www.rescuemuni.org. ★ We are recommending service expansion faster than local bus service and often faster using the following three modes: than traveling by car. Steering Committee Digest continued ommends that Muni negotiate for the use 1) Rail (including light-rail & heavy rail) Techniques used to convert slow, delay- • Posting the schedules (contacts: Eric of Fast Passes and BART Plus for this ser- 2) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) prone bus service to rapid transit include Carlson and Joan Downey. David Vartanoff vice. 3) Historic Streetcars (Including Cable exclusive lanes and roadways, which keep will not be present Wed.) Re parking on the sidewalk: Cars) buses out of auto traffic; signal pre-empts, • Newsletter (contacts: Eric, Howard RM endorses the following parking policies In addition, we are recommending incre- which give buses the ability to extend green Strassner, David Vasquez and Andrew and adds item 7) mental improvements to existing service, lights; bus stations, spaced fairly far apart, Sullivan) 1) to immediately raise the fine to $50 and to be implemented in the initial phase: with ticket machines and platforms to speed • Possible Cable Car survey (contact: to raise it to $100 over two years, 4) Improve Existing Buses & Light-Rail Ser- boarding; proof-of-payment fare collection, Howard) 2) educate drivers that sidewalk parking is vice and low-floor vehicles, again to speed • Formal 501 (c) 3 or 4 status both illegal and dangerous, We will first discuss the modes that we boarding. and more. 3) give sidewalk parking enforcement the are recommending, and then we will de- Bus Rapid Transit can be implemented June 18, 2001: Present, Both: Eric Carlson, same priority as given for blocked drive- scribe the corridors where we are plan- much more quickly, and at significantly lower Charlotte Breckenridge, Joan Downey, Dan ways, ning service and the phases of service ex- cost, than rail projects. The cheapest bus Krause, Dan Murphy, David Pilpel, Howard 4) zero-tolerance policy for egregious vio- pansion in some detail. (A more detailed improvements just need white paint – and Strassner and Andrew Sullivan. Visitors: Jim lations (completely blocking a sidewalk or report will be forthcoming shortly.) the political will to use it to mark exclusive Reid, Michael Smith, David Vasquez parking on sidewalk parallel to the street), Rail lanes – but more substantial projects can Steercom: We approved the following 5) allow people to park in the street in front An expansion of light rail and heavy rail also be completed at fairly low cost. In ad- policy positions. of their own driveway, and lines is crucial to meeting transportation dition, rapid bus service can be implemented Re Kirkland Division: 6) give tickets and not just warnings to re- needs for San Francisco and its regional con- on a block-by-block basis, progressively RESCUE MUNI OPPOSES the sale of the peat violators nections. We are proposing a significant ex- speeding up service as a corridor is up- Kirkland Facility at Fisherman’s Wharf. 7) increase enforcement in bus zones pansion of the Muni Metro light rail system graded. This is unlike rail service, which can’t WE SUPPORT Lease of the air rights with Excom: (both surface and subway), extension of run until the entire network is completed. the revenue stream to fund Muni opera- We elected Dan Krause to the Excom to downtown, and possible addi- In addition, BRT also allows Muni to acquire tions and WE SUPPORT use of the ground to fill the vacancy. tional access to BART. New subway lines right-of-way for future light rail service. floor for storage of historic streetcars and We set the next General Membership will be designed learning from design flaws Due to the relatively low-cost and fast possibly trolley coaches and hope this may meeting for 7/18. This will be our annual in the present Market Street Metro. construction times BRT offers, we are pro- (1) minimize expenses for the Geneva Yard election meeting. We understand that rail expansion is posing eight BRT lines with an accelerated “canopy”, (2) minimize time spent bringing The following Excom members terms ex- much more expensive than other transit construction schedule of five years. Our such vehicles in and out of revenue service pire this month. Andrew, Joan, Howard, modes. However, we are recommending it plan recommends utilization of all tech- and (3) alleviate pressure on rail storage Charlotte and Dan Krause. on some corridors because it provides a niques described above for speeding up bus space at Geneva. Our Fifth Anniversary Party will be on faster experience, and higher passenger ca- along exclusive BRT lanes. Where there will WE SUPPORT use of this storage facility Sept. 22. pacity, than even the most efficient rapid be no exclusive BRT lanes we encourage as a Historic Streetcar Museum and shop We discussed getting new members for bus service. We are recommending com- the utilization of as many techniques as pos- in lieu of the SRTP’s proposed expenditures the MTA CAC. We will endorse: Rosie or bination of new lines and modified versions sible. at the cable car barn. Regina from Sandoval's District; Ken Niemi of existing Muni Metro and Caltrain expan- Historic Streetcars / Cable Cars Re non-Muni transit operators in San Francisco: from Hall's District; Nia Crowder for sion plans. Building on the smashing success of the RM supports removing the prohibition Newsom's District. We are seeking bicycle Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) existing F-Line in San Francisco, we propose against regional transit providers picking up members for Daly's District. We need a For major corridors that do not warrant to greatly expand the system of historic and delivering passengers within SF. RM rec- member for Maxwell's district (10). ★ Page 4 Page 21 streetcars that will link many cultural, civic d. Phase 4 (2016-2030) 2001 Muni Riders' Survey: Complete Results and recreational destinations. Historic route Total % grade chg avg norm avg % clean 2000 1999 1998 * streetcar service is relatively inexpensive Phase 1 (2001-2005) - Short-Term resps late 01-00 wait wait crowd† clean grade %late %late %late to offer compared to modern light and Project Recommendations 2280%A 0:01 15% 2.21 100% A 19% 9% heavy rail systems, and its popularity makes This initial phase is mainly focused on 108 21 0% A 0% 0:04 9% 4.10 48% F 0% 0% it a logical choice for several tourist-inten- low-cost projects that will help speed 43 49 3% A -8% 0:10 89% 1.75 88% B 12% 26% 23% sive areas of town (notably the Marina). heavily used portions of the bus system and 6494%A -14% 0:11 91% 2.29 100% A 18% 21% 21% Also, we are proposing two small exten- close gaps in the existing transit system. 27 22 5% A 0:03 25% 3.91 82% B 2% sions of the cable car system that will sig- Therefore there is a great emphasis on Bus 44 53 8% A -2% 0:12 83% 2.71 92% A 10% 25% 9% nificantly improve its utility. Rapid Transit & streetcar development. F339%A -12% 0:04 37% 2.25 97% A 21% 11% 13% Improve/Extend Existing Bus and JKLMN 52 10% A -5% 0:01 46% 2.40 65% D 15% 20% Light Rail Service Rail Projects 1 64 13% B -11% 0:05 65% 2.59 100% A 24% 28% 23% We are also recommending some im- 1. Caltrain Electrification 33 43 14% B 6% 0:09 50% 2.64 62% D 8% 12% provements to existing bus and light rail Electrification of Caltrain is required to 9 21 14% B 9% 0:06 57% 3.33 85% B 5% 31% 27% service which will close key gaps and speed upgrade this commuter rail line to a high- 24 79 14% B -2% 0:06 62% 2.72 80% B 17% 22% 30% up service which is currently much too slow. speed urban and interurban transit system. 30 36 15% B -35% 0:04 67% 2.42 81% B 50% 26% 21% Existing surface light rail lines should be Plans for massive upgrades are currently N 348 16% B -5% 0:07 81% 3.11 74% C 20% 23% 42% sped up and some bus lines extended to being considered, but these hinge on elec- 15 29 17% B 0:08 92% 2.36 60% D 19% 31% make key connections. trification which is not fully funded yet be- 47 24 17% B 2% 0:02 56% 3.17 84% B 14% 40% cause San Francisco has not committed its K 31 19% B 16% 0:08 69% 2.31 62% D 4% 32% 41% III. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS portion. Electrification is also required for 26 28 20% C 0:17 94% 2.25 92% A 36% (4 PHASES) the extension of Caltrain to the Transbay 49 48 21% C -8% 0:11 93% 2.57 87% B 29% 23% 29% ur project recommendations are ex Terminal. 30X 24 21% C 21% 0:04 71% 2.92 93% A 0% 20% Otensive and ambitious. Therefore we 2. 3rd Street Light Rail (Already ap- 5 39 26% C 14% 0:05 63% 2.71 86% B 12% 16% 28% have split these recommendations into four proved & scheduled for completion in 2004) 22 34 26% C 5% 0:06 83% 3.00 66% D 21% 22% 29% phases. Phase I will include the lowest cost We are including this project because it is 42 27 27% C -3% 0:08 124% 2.94 100% A 30% 36% 25% projects that can be completed quickly un- scheduled for completion in phase 1. KLM 165 28% C 10% 0:05 100% 3.38 69% D 18% 22% 14% der today’s current funding environment. L 43 28% C -0% 0:06 78% 4.20 69% D 28% 26% 53% Phase II will be quite ambitious and we feel Bus Rapid Transit Projects 21 43 29% C 14% 0:10 105% 3.17 77% C 14% 26% 30% that some projects can be completed with 1. Van Ness BRT 67 24 29% C 0:25 128% 2.83 67% D current funding levels, but others will re- Muni is currently planning San Francisco’s M 24 29% C 5% 0:10 92% 2.71 89% B 25% 26% 31% quire further funding (i.e. renewal of exist- first exclusive Bus Rapid Transit lanes, on J 61 30% C 4% 0:06 103% 2.65 90% A 25% 36% 42% ing sales tax, etc.) Phases 3 & 4 include our Van Ness between 12th Street and 38 37 32% D -19% 0:07 107% 3.03 79% C 52% 33% 26% extremely bold "dream" projects and will Lombard. We wholeheartedly endorse this require significant new funding sources. project, and we recommend that it be ex- 18 13 0% A -11% 0:07 43% 2.77 75% C 11% 10% * Please note we are advocating comple- tended to accommodate 45 17 2% A -33% 0:05 46% 1.63 63% D 36% 23% 16% * tion of recommended projects during the service as follows: a one-way lane (south- 16BX 14 7% A 1% 0:04 37% 3.57 100% A 6% 19% * time frame of the phase they are listed un- bound on Mission Street to 16th St, one- 71L 11 9% A 1% 0:04 47% 3.91 100% A 8% * der. Consequently, many of the projects way lane eastbound on 16th, and a one-way 29 10 10% A -8% 0:09 59% 1.80 70% C 18% 40% * listed will have to begin the environmental lane northbound up South Van Ness. We 71 10 10% A -19% 0:06 54% 2.70 90% A 29% 23% 31% * and engineering studies in the previous see a rail upgrade of this project as some- 14 13 15% B -17% 0:04 68% 2.75 67% D 32% 47% 51% * phases. For example, Geary Rail is to be thing fairly far in the future. 12 12 17% B 0:04 49% 1.60 100% A * completed in Phase 2 or by 2010. The re- 2. Geary BRT 23 12 17% B 0:11 63% 3.00 80% B 13% * quired studies would need to be underway is our highest-priority in Phase 1. route for new rail service in San Francisco. Total 1773 17.3% B -2% 0:07 76% 2.94 79% C 18.9%25% 28% The project recommendations are split However, it will take some years for Geary into the four phases as follows: light rail to be built, and it is critical that we Note: Routes with an asterisk (*) in the right column had fewer than 20 responses; we are a. Phase 1 (2001-2005) implement rapid bus improvements in the reporting them here for completeness, but these results should be considered less accurate than b. Phase 2 (2006-2010) interim so that this corridor’s customers those in roman type. c. Phase 3 (2011-2015) Page 20 † Crowding is on a scale of 1 (empty) to 5 (jammed). Page 5 can get rapid service more quickly. Our This would run from Mission (BART) to Cleanliness by mode Geary Rapid Bus plan includes two exclu- Third Street via 16th Street. Rail should be sive transit lanes along Geary with provi- laid for future historic streetcar and later sion for future light rail service by laying Metro service. Line connects BART, inner 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% tracks for future LRV vehicles simulta- Mission, possible Caltrain station at 16th neously with BRT construction outside (where Caltrain would have to be grade streetcar 97% Masonic. This line would connect via Post separated from 16th Street anyway), and and O’Farrell (to accommodate subway Mission Bay. construction on Geary) and Market to the 6. Doyle Drive/Lombard BRT express 93% Transbay Terminal. The Van Ness BRT corridor presents an 3. Market Street BRT opportunity to upgrade service to the Ma- diesel This is Muni’s closest thing to Rapid Bus rina, Presidio, Golden Gate Bridge, and 81% service today. We advise upgrading Market Marin County as well via Lombard and Street a truly rapid route from Van Ness to Doyle Drive. We recommend adding com- electric 81% Embarcadero by making the following im- bined BRT/HOV lanes to Doyle Drive, and provements: exclusive transit lanes to Lombard Street. • Extend the center transit-exclusive lane Such a project would benefit Muni and metro 74% along Market between Van Ness to the Golden Gate Transit and would enable new, Ferry Terminal. This may require removal rapid service to the Presidio from the cen- Grand Total 79% of all private cars on Market (except ser- ter of town and points south and east. vice vehicles) between 6th Street & 7. 19th Avenue/Park Presidio BRT Embarcadero because heavy auto traffic in We are proposing Rapid Bus service for clean dirty the right lanes would block other Muni lines. 19th Avenue and Park Presidio, running from This lane must be enforced strictly. Geary to Daly City BART. This would share Crowding 1999-2001 • Add ticket machines at key locations for HOV lanes with cars but would include sig- faster boarding. Proof of Payment may not nal pre-empts at every intersection, proof 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% be realistic between Van Ness and Powell of payment and low-floor buses for faster due to risk of crime and fare evasion, but boarding. where appropriate it should be imple- 8. Mission BRT 1999 17% 31% 23% 15% 14% mented. We are advocating BRT along the entire • Restore signal timing. The present situa- length Mission south of 16th Street to Daly 2000 15% 32% 22% 19% 12% tion where buses are not even able to ar- City BART. Due to the dense and crowded rive at the boarding island must be stopped. nature of Mission, we are NOT advocating 2001 16% 25% 23% 18% 17% Muni’s timed light system was overridden exclusive BRT lanes. For this corridor we after the Loma Prieta Quake and needs advocate the use of bus bulb outs at every reinstatement. stop, signal pre-empts at every intersection, 1 2 3 4 5 4. Potrero/Bayshore BRT proof of payment and low-floor buses. This BRT corridor would run along total responses Bayshore Blvd. & Potrero Ave. with two Historic Streetcar / Cable Car Projects lanes of exclusive right-of-way. This corri- 1. G-Line to Golden Gate Park dor would support the current #9 bus as This proposed project already has wide 5000 well as a new Van Ness-Potrero-Bayshore community support. Service would run 3995 route, which would start at the Bayshore from downtown via the current F and N 4000 Transit Center & ride in exclusive lanes for lines to Golden Gate Park, using new tracks 3004 the entire jouney along Bayshore Blvd., from 9th and Irving to Music Concourse. 3000 Potrero Ave, 16th Street, South Van Ness 2. E or F-Line (Embarcadero) to Fort 1773 (northbound), Mission Street (southbound), Mason 2000 & Van Ness. The design would be similar to • Currently the E-Line from Fisherman’s 1896 2123 the Van Ness corridor described above. Wharf to Caltrain Depot is approved (with 1000 1365 5. 16th Street BRT the tracks in place) and is awaiting com- Page 6 0 Page 19 1997 1998 Fall 98 1999 2000 2001 . Phase 1 2001 Survey Results Summary 16. 13. 9. C Expansion Doyle Dr. olu stnut m Che b us ombard ay 2001 - 2005 L Broadw % of riders delayed 7. 3.

V

2. a

n

N

e

s

17. s 15. 30.0% 3rd St. 27.7% 1. 14.

Divisadero Geary M 4.

as

o

n

ic 25.4% 24.5% 18.9% 20.0% 10. 16th St. 5. Mission 17.3% 11. 12. 24th St. 10.0% 8. Cesar Chavez

3.

0.0%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 6.

Riders delayed by mode

45% 40% 35% D. Vasquez 4/01 30% Bus Rapid Transit Rail Improvements 25% 1999 2000 (BRT) Lines 11. J. Church /Third St. LRV. 20% 2001 1. Geary Street 12. CalTrain (electrified) 15% 2. Van Ness-Mission 13. Cable Car Extension (to wharf) 3. Van Ness-Bayshore 10% EIR/EIS/MIS & 4. Market Street Engineering Studies 5% 5. 16th Street 14. Geary Rail 0% 6. Outer Mission 15. 7. Doyle Drive-Lombard 16. F Line ext. to Presidio 8. 19th Ave 17. Cable Car extension Historic Streetcars (Calif. line to Japantown) 9. E-Line to Ft. Mason (use existing tunnel) 10. G-Line to GG Park

Page 18 Page 7 covered escalator. Phase 2 vide excellent service (graded A, 9% late) problem staying clean; the 108 was the Columbus while other modes showed improvement worst, with over half of its vehicles dirty.

Expansion Doyle Dr. 10. as well. Diesel and trolley coach lines both JKLMN service from Castro to Market was

rd 2006 - 2010 Lomba reduced delays a small amount from 2000, also a problem here. The F was one of the 7. 2. with 13% and 17% riders delayed respec- best again; this is in part due to the hard V

an N 8. 9. tively this year. (Both earned a B grade.) work done by the Market Street Railway ess

B aker Muni Metro service did not get better, how- to keep the historic cars in shape. Mainte- 4. 3rd St. 1. 3. ever: as in 2000, 20% of riders were de- nance crews of the other lines should take

L

5. a

Divisadero g Geary M u a layed. A chart of performance by mode is note - and Muni staff should consider ask- n

so a

n ic on page 18. ing operators of lines where cleaners are Service was also more consistent not available during the day to "pitch in" across various lines. For the first time and collect the garbage when customers this year, no line was graded F and only don't do their part. Enforcing a zero-toler- one (the 38-Geary) was graded D, with 32% ance policy against litter (as on BART) could of riders delayed. Of course, many lines help as well. were graded C, with delays in the 20-30 This year, we noted another drop in percent range, including many high-ridership participation in the survey. Our volun- lines (J, L, M, 22, 42, and more); but the huge teers were as dedicated as in previous years, variations in quality we saw in 1997-99 are but there were fewer of them; our 1773 not present here. Muni deserves signifi- data points for a full month of service were cant credit for this progress - although no the fewest for a systemwide survey since line should delay even 20% of its custom- the first survey in 1997. (See the chart on ers, the appalling behavior of lines like the page 20.) This unfortunately means that "L-Terrible" in 1998 (53% late!) seems to we do not have good data for as many lines be no more. - the "B" grade given the 14-Mission, for 11 8 of the 30 lines with sufficient data to example, is only based on 13 data points, Geneva report (20 points or more) were graded A, clearly not a sufficient sample. For Rescue including four diesel lines that use new Muni, of course this is bad news; but it may equipment: 2-Clement, 108-Treasure Island, be reflective of higher confidence in Muni, 43-Masonic, and 27-Bryant. Clearly fleet as customers feel that they don't have to replacement is making a difference for on- submit a survey is service is "okay." We time service. will study the comments submitted to try D. Vasquez 4/01 Crowding is an area where service is Table 2: Cleanest and dirtiest lines Subway Rail EIR/EIS/MIS & not improving. In 2001, more vehicles were crush-loaded (17%, up from 12% last year) line % clean grade 1. Downtown Geary (3 branches); Ma- Engineering Studies and many more were standing room only Best: sonic & Geary 10. Central Subway (59%, up from 53% last year). Our crowd- 2 100% A 2. Central Subway (Stockton to Geary (extension to Van Ness) ing chart on page 19 shows this clearly. 6 100% A to 3rd St.) 11. Geneva Rail Some of this is the result of increased rid- 1 100% A 3. Caltrain Extension ership (a good thing!) but Muni needs to 42 100% A monitor crowding closely and make sure F 97% A Elevated Rail that sufficient equipment is provided. The 4. Middle Geary L-Taraval and 108-Treasure Island both had Worst: JKLMN 65% D Surface Rail average crowding over 4 on a 1-5 scale - 33 62% D 5. Outer Geary (exclusive ROW) clearly too many of these trips were over- crowded. K 62% D 7. F Line Streetcar extension to Presidio Finally, we measured cleanliness for the 15 60% D 8. Cable Car extension (to Japan Town) first time. Here Muni has some room for 108 48% F 9. Transbay Terminal Reconstruction improvement. 79% of Muni vehicles were Total 79% C clean systemwide, but several lines had a Page 8 Page 17 mencement of service in a couple of years. 2. Caltrain Downtown Extension to 2001 Riders' Survey Results This line will run from Fisherman’s Wharf new Transbay Terminal to 4th & King in Mission Bay. 3. New Caltrain Stations at Oakdale/ Slight improvement this year. Andrew Sullivan explains. • Extend line via to Fort Palou and 16th Street (eliminate Paul Ave). Mason via Aquatic Park and the Fort Ma- Upgraded station at 22nd Street. s Muni getting better? This is the ques is a fairly liberal measure, but one that is son tunnel to provide service to the Ma- 4. Central Subway - currently planned tion we ask every year when we conduct consistent with riders' expectations. We I rina. (In this phase service would termi- for Third, Geary, Stockton Street; we would our annual Muni Riders' Survey. This year, also asked riders to record crowding on a nate at the Fort Mason parking lot.) build to Washington Square. we are once again pleased to report that scale of 1 to 5, and (for the first time) 3. Powell-Mason Cable Car Extension Muni service quality is improving, although whether a vehicle was clean or not. to Beach Street Historic Streetcar / Cable Car Projects at a slower pace than last year. Muni's on- (Note that this year, service was added • This small extension would significantly 1. Fort Mason to Golden Gate Bridge time performance improved again, with on the 12-Folsom line as part of the South improve access to Fisherman’s Wharf for (via Marina, Letterman & Crissy Field) 17.3 percent of our riders experiencing of Market service realignment during the cable car customers. 2. 4th/King to Castro via 16th Street delays on average, earning Muni another B- survey period; all 12 trips were taken after - 4th St, 3rd St., 16th St. (sharing BRT lanes), minus for on-time service; Muni's service this change, so the new timetable was used.) Improvements to existing LRV and Bus lines Church, and 17th St. (existing non-revenue quality also became more consistent across On-time service improved systemwide • LRV Signal pre-empts, dedicated right-of- tracks). the various lines and modes. as measured in our survey. As noted above, way, and other delay eliminations, especially 3. California Cable Car extension to Rescue Muni conducted its fifth annual Muni's overall rating improved to 17.3 per- on the Embarcadero, Inner Sunset and West Japantown survey (sixth total) in February of 2001. This cent of riders delayed (B-minus grade), a Portal. year, 65 volunteers recorded 1773 bus and small but significant improvement from • 35 line to Glen Park BART Phase 3 (2011-2015) – Long-Term streetcar rides, noting how long they waited 2000. Compared to Muni's nadir in 1998, • 14 Line to BART at Daly City or Colma Project Recommendations and how long the trip took. Some volun- however, this is more impressive: 28% of • 22 line to Fort Mason to connect with his phase focuses on rail only with all teers also stood at fixed points and re- riders were delayed then, so Muni has re- streetcar and serve that facility (as Muni BRT & streetcar expansions complete. corded all vehicles that came by; 350 of the duced delays by more than a third. Nor- T may already be planning.) 1773 trips were recorded that way. As we malized waiting time got slightly worse • 28 Line extended to Van Ness and Wharf Rail Projects have done since 1997, we compared rid- systemwide; customers waited an average area. This service would have many cash 1. Central Subway Extension - From ers' actual waiting times with the headways of 76% of posted frequency (a 50% average fares, would use Lombard, Doyle, Park Washington Sq. to Aquatic Park via Colum- advertised on Muni's Street and Transit Map is optimal). Presidio and 19th Avenue BRT lanes.) bus and North Point to Aquatic Park/Van (posted in all bus shelters) and service bul- On-time service was more consistent Ness. letins. Riders who waited more than the this year across the modes, with the F-Mar- Phase 2 (2006-2010) - Mid-Term 2. Geneva - From Bayshore Transfer Cen- full headway are considered delayed - this ket historic streetcar continuing to pro- Project Recommendations ter to Balboa Park via Geneva. Connects ith an extensive Bus Rapid Transit BART, Caltrain, Third street Rail, buses and Table 1: Best and worst lines; systemwide performance Wsystem put in place in Phase 1, Phase both Muni rail yards. route % riders Grade change 2000 1999 1998 Total 2 focuses on Muni LRV, Caltrain and the E/ 3. Possible 30th Street BART Station late 01-00 % late % late % late responses F-Line Streetcar. Geary BRT is upgraded (Requires further study) Total 17.3% B -1.6% 18.9% 25% 28% 1773 to rail. Projects would have been studied in Best five lines: Phase I for cost effectiveness. Phase 4 (2016-2030) – Very Long- 2 0% A 19% 9% 28 Term Project Recommendations 108 0% A 0% 0% 0% 21 Rail Projects gain, rail is the focus of this phase. The 43 3% A -8% 12% 26% 23% 49 1. Geary Light Rail- surface from Point Aprojects in this phase are only possible Lobos to Laguna (possibly elevated between with massive funding increases over current 6 4% A -14% 18% 21% 21% 49 Baker and Laguna), subway to connection projections. 27 5% A 2% 22 with Central subway at Union Square. Then: Worst five lines: 1. South via Third Street Central subway Rail Projects 21 29% C +14% 14% 26% 30% 43 2. North to Chinatown and North Beach 1. Extend Central Subway into Circle 67 29% C 24 3. North, then east via Pine Street spur to Line (From Aquatic Park via Van Ness and M 29% C +5% 25% 26% 31% 24 Financial District/ , South Van Ness (BART link) in subway; 16th J 30% C +4% 25% 36% 42% 61 with easy connection to Transbay. We pre- St. and 3rd St (on surface via existing tracks) 38 32% D -19% 52% 33% 26% 37 fer Pine spur to Muni alternative of Folsom to Central subway. (Possible new Central Street. Subway portal south of Mission Creek) Page 16 Page 9 Phases 3&4 Sample Letter on AB1419 Columbus Expansion Doyle Dr. [Subject: Please Support AB1419!] 3. 2011 - 2020 Lombard Dear Senator:

V

a

n I urge you to approve the passage of AB1419 without undue amendments, re-

N

e

s s quirements or restrictions. 3rd St. The Transbay Terminal Project is extremely important to me. Our region needs

Divisadero Geary M a modernized and electrified Caltrain integrated with a new downtown San Fran-

a

s

o

n ic cisco Transbay Bus Terminal for our mobility and economic vitality. This project is

4. 1. requisite to improved transbay and express bus access from the East Bay and around the Bay Area. The future success of intercity and high speed rail to Sacra-

Mission 16th St. mento and southern California depends upon it. 5. AB1419 transfers land around the Transbay Terminal from Caltrans to the City & County of San Francisco for transit-oriented development. This transit-friendly development will in turn help pay for the new Transbay Terminal while providing Ceasar Chavez Viaduct tremendous benefit to the entire region. It represents a gigantic leap forward in 6. the creation of a convenient and seamless regional and state-wide transit net- work. It will be a model for smart land use planning and provide thousands of units of much-needed affordable housing. We urge you to work for its passage through the Senate.

Sincerely, Name and Mailing Address

2. Here are email addresses and fax numbers for the Senators. Remember that fax G en eva and regular mail is better - postal addresses are on PR2000's web site, www.rail2000.org.)

John Burton, President Pro Tempore and San Francisco senator: fax 916-445-4722, email [email protected] D. Vasquez 4/01 Jackie Speier, San Francisco senator: New/Extended Light Rail EIR/EIS/MIS & fax 916- 327-2186, email [email protected] 1. Downtown Subway loop Engineering Studies (connects to both ends of Central sub- 4. G Streetcar line (extend to beach; Kevin Murray, Chair, Senate Transportation Committee: way) connect to Geary) fax 916-445-8899, email [email protected] 2. Geneva St. 5. N-Judah line (Subway under Don Perata: fax 916- 327-1997, email [email protected] (surface line; 3rd. St. to Balboa Park) Parnassus to 9/Judah) Liz Figueroa: fax 916- 327-2433, email [email protected] 6. Potrero/Bayshore St. rail Tom Torlakson: fax 916- 319-2111, email [email protected] New/Extended Heavy Rail Byron Sher: fax 916-323-4529, email [email protected] 3. for Caltrain John Vasconcellos: fax 916-324-0283, email [email protected] (connects to Downtown Loop line) Where's that Streetcar (or Bus)? Get real-time Muni Metro (surface) location updates at: www.nextbus.com/muni-metro Underground streetcar locations can be seen at: www.sfmunicentral.com Page 10 22-Fillmore locations (pilot project only) are at: Page 15 www.nextbus.com/muni 2. Extend Caltrain to East Bay via new IV. TRANSIT-ORIENTED LAND USE Conventional Rail Transbay Tube. RECOMMENDATIONS YES on AB1419: Help Fund escue Muni supports development pat We also would like to see high-level stud- Rterns that will make the transit invest- the New Transbay Terminal ies done of the following alternatives for ments cost effective by promoting higher Phase 4: ridership. The following transit-oriented de- Muni, AC Transit, and Caltrain need your help to fund the new Transbay Terminal. Marga- • Potrero / Bayshore rail, feeding into velopment we are proposing are directly ret Okuzumi of Peninsula Rail 2000 urges you to write your State Senator. Circle Line in either direction linked to specific projects recommended in this report. Also, Rescue Muni believes de- The Transbay Terminal project, to and mailed letters are best--contact • Van Ness BART Extension (16th Street build a major regional bus and rail fa- info below. An email is better than velopment around transit can be a tool in to Aquatic Park via South Van Ness; con- alleviating the current housing crisis. There- cility to replace the old bus terminal in nothing, but we encourage you to send nects to BART to SFO as an alternative to fore, we are proposing a significant amount downtown SF, is key to transit connec- faxes or letters via postal mail instead. Muni Metro Circle Line) of housing in the proposed development tivity and capacity in the Bay Area for If you have time, fax AND call the Sac- • G-Line Extension via Golden Gate Park areas discussed below, with a large percent- scores of transit providers including ramento and/or local offices. to 48/Geary age being for low-to-moderate income Muni, AC Transit, Caltrain, Golden Gate Also, if you have friends in southern • G line extension north on 8th Avenue households. Transit and SamTrans. With this project, California, please ask them to contact to Geary The following is a list of potential "tran- sit village" developments that could fund Caltrain will finally be extended to the their local state senator in support of N-Line Subway under Parnassus to 9/ • Muni expansion while providing housing and heart of San Francisco's downtown for AB1419. Caltrain extention to the ter- Judah convenient connections to transit to minal is a critical first step towards high- commercial space that is convenient to our new transit corridors. In each of these we the rest of the city and the region, and speed rail to San Francisco, which is would expect Muni to work with the com- customers of the bus lines using the useful for travelers all around the state! munity to develop plans to increase the terminal will have better connections Below is a sample letter to your density and general utility of the corridor all around the Bay. Senator. (It's also on the Rescue Muni A state bill, AB1419 (Aroner) was web site, www.rescuemuni.org.) Please written to facilitate the construction personalize your letters as much as Transit Oriented Development Areas of this project. While AB1419 passed possible with reasons or examples how in the Assembly, we've learned that it the Transbay Terminal and Caltrain ex- may be in trouble in the Senate. We tension project would benefit you or need your help to get it passed! someone you know personally. If you support this project (Rescue For more info on the Transbay Terminal Muni's Steering Committee has voted project, please see the Transbay Terminal to), please write to your Senator FAQ on the PR2000 web site at http:// ASAP in support of AB1419. Faxes www.rail2000.org/dtx/tt-q_and_a.html. ★

Wash that Muni rage right outta your hair! It’s cheaper than therapy. Need a gift for someone you love (or sit next to on the bus)? Puni is for you. Paperback, full color cover, includes 82 classic Puni PUNI strips, character bios, and Puni bus lines. Also includes the unreleased APOCALYPSE MUNI saga, a parody of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now. the book Send $12 to: (U.S. check or money order only) Dan Siegler, P.O. Box 193-556, SF, CA 94119 For more information, see http://www.sfweekly.com/ Page 14 specialprojects/punibook/punibook.html Page 11 or location in question, with the twin goals official documents about capital projects We would argue that our best chance of proposed downtown transit assess- of increased Muni funding and improved already in the pipeline. We invite your com- success here will come from the increased ment district (similar to the one defeated quality of life. (A more detailed list of land- ments on this section in particular over the demand for transit and rail expansion re- in 1994’s Proposition O) would not be le- use recommendations will be included in next several months. gion-wide as well as the successful comple- gal under Proposition 218. A citywide as- our final report.) We are estimating a total cost of $8.5 tion of the first phases. sessment is an option, but this too may not billion for this 30-year service expansion We propose several strategies to raise be possible under Proposition 218. We 1. Geary/Masonic Transit Village (Project program. This is broken down into phases local funding for transit expansion. A suc- would be interested in comments from Links: & Geary and modes as described in Table 1. cessful transit expansion initiative would by knowledgeable parties on this issue. Rail) Note that we are more sure of the costs necessity include several of these: VI. CONCLUSION 2. Geary Corridor (Van Ness to 33rd Ave - associated with projects in the earlier 1. Sales Tax: This offers the biggest bang an Francisco needs better public tran Project Links: Geary Bus Rapid Transit & phases (the Rapid Bus projects in particu- for the buck. Renewal of the current 1/2 Ssit. This is quite clear. The increased Geary Rail) lar) and less sure of the costs of Caltrain cent sales tax, currently scheduled to ex- demand for transit service, along with in- 3. Van Ness Corridor (Project Links: Van and BART expansion, in particular the pro- pire in 2009, is absolutely critical. Another creased auto traffic, tell us that there is a Ness Bus Rapid Transit & Subway Rail Ser- posed new transbay tube. half-cent sales tax for transit would double need for improvements to our transit sys- vice) Some of this program is already funded the amount currently dedicated to Muni; tem. While it is essential to make the cur- 4. South Van Ness Corridor (Market To 16th in Muni’s capital improvement program (e.g. we feel that this would have a strong chance rent system more reliable, as the people of St. - Project Links: Van Ness Bus Rapid Tran- the Third Street light rail project and part of passage if tied to a strong Muni expan- San Francisco voted in 1999’s Proposition sit & Subway Rail Service) of the Central Subway as far as Sacramento sion program. E, we also feel that it is important to ex- 5. 16th Street Corridor (Mission To 3rd Street); however, the vast majority of the 2. Parking Tax: This tax already funds Muni pand San Francisco’s rapid transit capacity Street - Project Links: 16th Street Bus Rapid program will require additional funding from operations, but it could be increased to pay to meet this increased demand. Transit & E-Line Streetcar Service) local as well as state and federal sources. for service expansion - and this would also Our plan of rapid bus, light rail, streetcar, 6. Bayshore Corridor (Marin To Industrial - We expect that a significant portion of this have the effect of reducing traffic. Caltrain, and BART expansions is an aggres- Project Links: Bayshore/Potrero Bus Rapid money will need to be raised locally; to build 3. Joint Development: Muni has the po- sive one, and we understand that San Transit & Rail) phases one and two, for example, the total tential to develop lands it owns near new Franciscans would need to make public 7. Bayshore Station Transit Village (Project cost is almost $4 billion; we would expect transit service, as discussed above, and use transit a major priority in order to fund it. Links: 3rd Street Light Rail, Geneva Rail, that at least $1-2 billion would need to be the proceeds to fund service expansion. But we believe strongly that this is the right Bayshore/Potrero BRT, Caltrain Station) raised from San Francisco and regional 4. Tax Increment Financing: This not choice. San Francisco is such a pleasant 8. 3rd Street Corridor (Project Link: 3rd sources. only encourages transit-oriented develop- city in part because it is a walking city – and Street Light-Rail ) (Note that this is figure, while large, is ment, but the tax increment from transit- for this to continue in the face of popula- 9. Geneva Corridor (Project Link: Geneva similar in scale to Muni’s current 20 year oriented development zones may be re- tion and income growth, it needs a world- Extension of 3rd Street Light-Rail) capital improvement program, $6.5 billion, served for transit. This can work well with class public transit system. We believe that and also Santa Clara County’s recently a program of up-zoning in transit corridors. our new transit network, the first phase of V. COST ESTIMATES AND FUND- adopted BART and other transit expansion 5. Regional gasoline tax: This could be which would be running in five years, would ING STRATEGIES program,approximately $6 billion.) introduced throughout the nine-county Bay be a major step in this direction. We hope s noted repeatedly in this document, For phases three and four (particularly Area for transit improvements. to receive your feedback – and ultimately Athis is a very ambitiousplan that will the new transbay tube, but also several of 6. Congestion road pricing: San Fran- your support. ★ require a multi-decade funding and con- the subway projects), we would need a sig- cisco and Caltrans could raise bridge tolls struction commitment, in addition to Muni’s nificant new source of funding that would much higher at rush hour or (at greater ongoing service improvement work, to suc- probably only be available via re-allocation political cost) create a downtown street ceed. The following are our very high-level of regional highway dollars, which we un- pricing zone. cost estimates for the four phases of this derstand is a fairly difficult task politically. 7. MTC Funds: San Francisco should de- program, based on our reading of various mand more equitable distribution to San Table 1: Estimated Capital Costs ($Millions) Francisco of transportation dollars by the phase BRT LRT Historic Caltrain total Metropolitan Transportation Commission. /BART Funding should consider daytime popula- Don't be naked either! tions not just ‘census’ populations. 1 $ 630.95 $ 290.70 $ 62.25 $ 135.00 $ 1,118.90 Wear our stylish, warm 2 $ 1,988.80 $ 196.00 $ 700.00 $ 2,884.80 8. BART Contribution: San Francisco should demand its overdue share of BART long-sleeve t-shirt on those 3 $ 709.60 $ 300.00 $ 1,009.60 foggy summer days. 4 $ 1,400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 3,400.00 expansion money used to fund Muni rail. Order at www.rescuemuni.org. total $ 630.95 $4,389.10 $ 258.25 $ 3,135.00 $ 8,413.30 It is our understanding that the frequently Page 12 Page 13