Municipal Railways

Maintaining MUNI as a City Department, as it is now; 2. A City Department to control policy, with MUNI to be operated by a non-profit organization; 3. A Municipal Transit Agency; and 4. An independent transit district. Under Option 3, creation of the Municipal Transit Agency, which is recommended by both the Task Force and Rescue MUNI, the Report states that it "would provide more autonomy and managerial scope than the present City department (Option 1), but less independence than a completely separate transit district (see Option 4 below.)" The Mayor would appoint the Agency's seven board members and their appointment would be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. They could be removed by a concurrence of the Mayor and two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors. The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors would appoint a Community Advisory Committee. Option 4 would create an Independent Transit District, analogous to BART, the San Mateo Transit District or the Golden Gate Bridge District. It would be created by state legislation. The Task Force Plan does not state how the directors of such a district would be chosen. Under the Rescue Muni Plan, the Agency Board would also be appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, but directors could only be removed for cause. The Task Force proposes that the new Agency would merge with the City's Department of Parking and Traffic three years after its creation. Its plan would set specific goals which the Agency would be expected to meet three to five years after its creation. The Agency would honor Transit First provisions, placing the needs of public transportation over the needs of private vehicles. The Task Force plan would empower the Board of Directors of the Agency to develop and negotiate with the union(s) to establish principles for merit pay and employee incentives, based on achieving service and performance goals. It would also establish a Community Advisory Council of representative citizens and handicapped persons. Certain issues separate the two groups. First, Rescue MUNI wants the merger of the Agency and the Department of Parking and Traffic to occur at the outset. The Task Force wants the merger of the two functions to wait for a period of three years, allowing the Director of the Agency time to launch it and resurrect MUNI from its present morass. The merit pay and incentive issue is a thorny one. While it is not clear from the proposed ordinance, apparently payments for merit pay under the Rescue MUNI plan are to be authorized only on a group basis, not on an individual basis. There is also a difference of opinion as to whether union work rules should be written into the legislation or to be negotiated between the union(s) and the new Board. Rescue MUNI favors writing the union work rules into the legislation, while the Task Force favors negotiation by the unions and the Board. Under either scheme, union work rules will no longer be directly negotiated between the union and elected officials who depend on union support for their reelection. Both groups agree that there must be service and performance standards, but there is disagreement as to whether the standards should be written into the legislation, set forth as objectives to be negotiated or be adopted by ordinance. Finally, the two groups differ on how to further Transit First policies. The Task Force believes that the policies should be developed by the Board of Supervisors. FINDINGS The Grand Jury agrees that MUNI should become a separate, independent agency, as recommended by the Task Force and Rescue MUNI. The Grand Jury prefers Option Four, not Option Three, in the Task Force Report. Option Four would create a truly independent Agency, allowing the Agency to be further insulated from the politically motivated Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. Apparently the members of the Task Force also believe that Option Four would be preferable, but believe that it is not politically attainable. The Task Force suggests that establishment of a truly independent agency would also raise certain funding complexities. Both plans represent a substantial improvement over the present system. Failure to adopt some plan at this point will probably ensure a continuation of mediocre to bad transit in San Francisco. Removing the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor from the operations of MUNI is the first (and only the first) step in resolving the problem. [3] Whatever system is adopted, it should not be a system involving divided authority. All authority should rest with the new Agency.

SAFETY HAZARDS The Grand Jury noted that most drums storing fluids are not properly grounded and that wires are often left lying on the ground. Often drums are not stored on double- containment pallets, as required. These hazards were particularly noted at the new Marin Avenue facility. At Marin Avenue, a Safety Shut-off Switch for a large double- contained concrete tank was located behind a column, accessible only by climbing over drums stored around the column. Employees were found smoking inside shop areas, near possibly dangerous liquid chemicals. In one case a supervisor, when notified of such a problem, seemed unconcerned, replying that the offender was not a MUNI employee, but a contract employee working on a Breda car. The Grand Jury frequently noted accumulations of dirty rags thrown into empty boxes rather than being stored in safe, enclosed containers. Old florescent tubes were seen discarded in open trash containers, instead of being crushed and disposed of safely. At one location, the Grand Jury found an out-dated hazardous material certificate which was twenty-two months overdue. FINDING MUNI seems to lack a dedication towards safety in its yards.

SAFETY ON THE STREETS The Grand Jury did not spend significant time investigating the problem of safety of MUNI vehicles while operating on the streets. However, it is apparent that, in the past twelve to twenty four months, there have been a number of serious accidents. Many accidents have involved drivers with inferior driving records. Mr. Burns advised the Grand Jury that it is his intention to create a Safety and Training Department which will report directly to the General Manager.

SECURITY The Grand Jury found security to be incredibly lax in the various MUNI yards. For example, at the Woods yard, where many vehicles are stored, there is a ten foot high chain link fence, topped with razor wire, but the gate is wide open and unmanned. It is an open invitation for vandals and graffiti artists (taggers) to damage vehicles. Despite the fact that, in the past, a MUNI vehicle was stolen for a joyride, there are no obvious procedures to prevent other vehicle thefts. At the Marin Avenue yard, there appeared to be no attempt to prevent unauthorized access to the facility Employees park their cars in MUNI yards. While available parking space in neighborhoods near the yards may be limited or non-existent, parking of private cars in the yards may present a security risk. Also, employees wash their cars in the yards, creating liability problems. The Grand Jury was advised that employees service their own cars or the cars of others in yards and on working time. There is no confirmation of that information.