Sometimes no extra commentary is needed whatsoever. Maria Lombardo, Deputy Director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority took the initiative to write the Golden Gate Transit Bus District with her rather unflattering thoughts about ferries. It prompted a read-only-wearing-asbestos-gloves response from Marina V. (and don’t you forget it) Secchitano, the tigress that serves as Regional Director of the Inland Boatmen’s Union, an affiliate of the Longshoremen.
Published: August, 2003
Sometimes no extra commentary is needed whatsoever: consider this exchange. Maria Lombardo, Deputy Director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, took the initiative to write the Golden Gate Transit Bus District with her rather unflattering thoughts about ferries. It prompted the read-only-wearing-asbestos-gloves response that follows from Marina V. (and don’t you forget it) Secchitano, the tigress that serves as Regional Director of the Inland Boatmen’s Union, an affiliate of the Longshoremen.
Action:
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
100 Van Ness Avenue, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 98102
June 4, 2003
Sue Chiaroni
Deputy General Manager,
Bus Division
1011 Andersen Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: Proposed Golden Gate Transit Service Cuts
Dear Ms. Chiaroni:
I am writing to provide comments on transit service cuts that Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is proposing in order to meet a projected $25 million shortfall in fiscal year 2004. District staff presented the proposed cuts to the Authority’s Technical Working Group on May 15, 2003. The Authority appreciates the opportunity to make these comments; with the bulk of District routes serving San Francisco, it is appropriate that San Francisco have a voice in this process.
First, we recognize the effects of the economic downturn on District revenues and acknowledge the need to cut service in the short term. That being said, the Authority does have some comments and concerns about the specific service cut proposal that was presented.
The cuts to late-night bus service strike at the heart of the Authority’s goal to make transit a real alternative to driving. If a potential patron, particularly a second- or third-shift worker, can only count on a bus for one half of the trip (e.g., the trip to work), transit is no longer a viable alternative. Similarly, these cuts raise the issue of social equity. District staff estimate that the service cuts will leave only 3% of its patronage without service. Yet in all likelihood, it is precisely this 3% that rely on transit the most. The Authority asks that these late-night cuts be carefully looked at with the needs of the transit-dependent in mind.
More generally, the Authority recommends the pursuit of long-term institutional changes to address the $200 million shortfall, rather than undertaking this sort of short-term, cost-cutting exercise every year. Therefore, although the Authority was only asked to comment on the proposal for service cuts for the next fiscal year, two such structural changes do warrant mention.
We also note that cuts to ferry service are conspicuous in their absence, again raising a social equity issue. Data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission show, however, that District ferry service scores lower than bus service in most performance measures, indicating that ferry service should be cut first from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. We understand that ferry service is not proposed for cuts at this time due to the current contract with the ferry crews. The authority hopes that the ferry crew contractual relationship can be revisited, to offer more incentives for cost-effective service.
An untapped and unmentioned alternative source of potentially significant revenue for the District seems to lie in the FasTrak toll differential. Currently, FasTrak users pay one dollar less to cross the bridge than non-FasTrak users. At one point, all Bay Area toll bridges offered a similar discount to FasTrak users as a way to nurture the market. Now that the market has matured (the District’s published data show that fully 69% of peak period toll transactions involve FasTrak), the Golden Gate Bridge is the only bridge to continue to provide the discount. The reasons for this are unknown, but calculations using the District’s own data suggest that eliminating the one-dollar toll differential would raise over $9 million in revenue a year, almost half of the projected shortfall in fiscal year 2004. Since FasTrak provides users with time savings as well as cost savings, FasTrak usage on the Golden Gate Bridge could be expected to stay the same even if the lower toll incentive was removed.
Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed service cuts. We look forward to continuing to work with Golden Gate Transit through our Technical Working Group.
Sincerely,
Maria Lombardo
Deputy Director
Reaction:
Inlandboatmen’s Union Of The Pacific
Marine Division – International Longshore & Warehouse Union
National Office
1711 W. Nickerson Street, Suite D
Seattle, WA 98119
July 2, 2003
Supervisor Chris Daly
Chair
San Francisco Transportation Authority (SFTA)
City Hall
1 Carlton Goodlett Place
San Francisco, Ca 94111
Dear Supervisor Daly:
I represent the men and women that crew the Golden Gate, Vallejo and Oakland/Alameda ferries. In their behalf, I am writing to let you know of our strong objections to the June 4th letter sent by the SFTA’s staff to the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Transportation District. Most troubling is the following comment:
"We understand that ferry service is not proposed for cuts at this time due to the current contract with the ferry crews. The Authority hopes that the ferry crew contractual relationship can be revisited, to offer more incentives for cost-effective service."
Your staff suggests that GGBHTD ferry service is ineffective because of our union contract. It is inappropriate for the SFTA staff to be second-guessing our collective bargaining agreement with the GGBHTD. Would it be right for Marin or Alameda County’s CMAs to second-guess MUNI’s contracts with its drivers? Or, will the SFTA start second-guessing the contract MUNI drivers have with their management?
Your staff asks for ferry cuts based on bad information that ferries are cost-ineffective and that buses perform better. These statements show the need for the SFTA staff to get accurate information about how ferries perform. Recently, the WTA did exhaustive studies about the competitive performance of ferries as compared to buses. WTA’s data on cost-effectiveness was reviewed by MTC and they agreed with it. This information should have been reviewed before your staff sent a letter urging cuts in service that will affect the livelihood of my members and the commute options of people working in San Francisco.
The SFTA’s staff letter contradicts San Francisco’s city policies which encourage the use of ferry service for buses whenever possible to cut down on noise and pollution. It would require anywhere between seven and sixteen buses to carry the same number of passengers as one Golden Gate ferry can carry. Unlike buses, ferries help relieve traffic from Marin County commuters that otherwise would end up in San Francisco’s Downtown or the waterfront.
I hope the SFTA will stop second-guessing union contracts. The SFTA needs to be more careful in commenting about labor issues. I urge your agency to get its facts straight about the performance of ferries. This will be important in my considering the support that our members can lend in the renewal of the San Francisco sales tax for the November ballot. It will also help me prepare for discussions when the San Francisco Labor Council takes up the upcoming sales tax renewal.
Sincerely,
Marina V. Secchitano, Regional Director
Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, ILWU Marine Division
