Reineck & Reineck Design

Summary

A 2004 San Francisco Civil grand jury 'ripped' Muni for failing to meet performance standards, and for overall weak management. Even though this paper subscribes to the notion that Muni is not performing to its best possible levels, it may be too harsh to 'rip' Muni. However, improvements can certainly be made. This paper focuses on structural improvements that Muni can make regarding its performance. Center stage is the possible adjustment to its operations of today's Muni Metro (which are streetcar lines that serve as a metro underground) to a model with a separately operated fast metro and separately operated streetcar lines without it costing a dime. By specializing functions the level of quality in speed and service would improve drastically, and the cost would be lower than what it is today. Today, five separate streetcar lines put limitations on the available infrastructure downtown (the single Market Street tunnel), delivering a distinctively lower quality of service at the center of the Muni system, and thus the whole system. By adjusting the current model the center of San Francisco would have the highest quality service (fast metro), while the best quality is still maintained for the outer ranges (streetcars). When used as proposed, the pivotal segment (the Market Street tunnel) has a capacity of 250% compared to today's use, while the streetcars (that run above ground) would also be able to improve on their service.

To make the choice understandable — on how to use the Market Street tunnel best — this paper starts out describing Muni's historical background. San Francisco went from a free-market innovative transportation Mecca to an organization operating during the difficult years of stagnation from the 30s on. This changed again in the 60s, with the reemergence of public transportation needs. The historical backdrop is significant in that it clarifies a management situation in public transportation where politically-correct decisions can be made that may not be the best decisions from an economic point of view nor from a service point of view. With management no longer centered in an independent free-market environment, a politically dependent organization made all the decisions. In such an environment the economic reasoning can more easily be relegated to the side.

In the past this management has made structural choices that lead to under performance. Point in case: the creation of BART with a tunnel under Market Street lead to Muni owning a tunnel. At that point in time Muni could have revamped its operation systems for no extra dollars, but chose/was forced to choose to use the tunnel as the new part of what once was successful: the streetcar system. The tunnel's swift success immediately showed that a problem had been created: a structural limitation existed now within the streetcar system because all lines could not move fast enough through that one tunnel. The capacity of the system is limited, and is undermined by multiple lines with short trains. The structural choice seems to be made to avoid transfers at all cost and not create acceptable transfer situations (like a well-liked transfer between streetcar and fast metro). In the late 1990's San Francisco's Muni put an ATC system in place to get around the capacity limitation, and in some way it worked. Muni saw a 20% increase in Muni Metro ridership; but this was to be expected with Muni having one of the highest load factors in the industry (overcrowded cars). In other cities — when higher load factors occurred — the choice often got made to make use of scale of economies; provide faster, better, and cheaper service through the use of systems operating both on a larger scale and in a specialized manner. In those cities the fast metro became the backbone of the system. In contrast, Muni Metro takes on only 21% of the total of Muni passengers. According to Economics 101 when combining two forms of operation (streetcar and metro) one often ends up with a lesser form (Muni Metro).

This paper provides an example Ñ not rich in detail, but focused on the why savings and service can improve simultaneously Ñ on how Muni could have specialized the underground segment, and it shows that better and faster operations would have been the result both for the metro and the streetcar lines; all for less money. Today, no major investments are required at all to get a faster more attractive metro in San Francisco because the infrastructure to make use of scale of economies was already put in place. By using the same transit material significant savings and improved service can get achieved. Future replacements of Breda cars could cost as little as 40% for new metro cars. Other areas of San Francisco could be redirected to a Market Street tunnel that can handle two and a half times more passengers. People could easily save up to twenty minutes a day on their commute. Without spending more money, the organization of Muni operations can be improved today; savings that can possibly be used in other parts of the organization.

If Muni is not operating on the best possible level this should become visible in its accounting as well. A financial comparison of Muni with other public transportation organizations shows that Muni is really not very cost effective. Compared to others, it operates with a lot more vehicles and subsequently uses a lot more personnel for the same amount of passengers. I did not find any similar organization that has Muni's low return of 24% to the dollar of operating costs. Other cities seem to have implemented operating on a larger specialized scale quicker, where popular sections of their transit system now cost less per passenger/mile. Their subway tunnels handle many more passengers than the Market Street tunnel. Compared to others Muni's overhead seems rather big as well. The main conclusion of the paper is that Muni's organization is not performing like similar organizations.

Back to MUNI Metro...and the possibility to make better use of Economy of Scale

Disclaimer: All links functioned at conception of this e-paper; the writer does not accept responsibility for inaccurate figures due to updated versions or links no longer available.