Muni finally gets its act together. Just kidding

Cuts to 40 bus lines leave riders stranded. Maybe forever

Um, shouldn’t we be talking about Muni?

Of course, you saw the news stories. According to the Chronicle as many as 40 of the 68 existing bus lines are going to be be abolished. And in a shocker, Muni says the cuts may be permanent.

Permanent? Isn’t this a tilt-the-world-on-its-axis moment? We’ve been talking about San Francisco as a “transit first” city for decades.

In the last few years, city streets have undergone dramatic transformations. Red lanes have blocked off streets for buses and taxis, bulb-out curbs have created bus stops and empty buses run regularly through neighborhoods.

And now you are saying “Never mind?”

This requires step back. What’s really going on here?

First, this is not the result of the pandemic. Well, it is in one way since absolutely nobody is riding the buses now, which has the predictable effect on cash flow. And the fact that riders are going to be slow to come back will make it hard to meet expenses.

But these are financial troubles long in the making, and weak on solutions. When the bus whack-backs were announced, transportation chief Jeffrey Tumlin laid out the bad news in an SFMTA board meeting just before the Fourth of July.

It is a fire hose of red ink. Predictions of $568 million in losses in the next four years. Skyrocketing maintenance costs. A $46 million increase in pension payments.

The real problem, Tumlin said, was that the SFMTA would be “living on our credit cards” for the next two years. And then he said, “We fall off a financial cliff in 2022.”

Geez Jeff, don’t sugar coat it. Give it to us straight.

Pandemic or no, the bus system is in big trouble.

We will now allow a five minute recess while you yell about all the people who get on the bus and don’t pay.

And granted that’s annoying. But the revenue from fares — admittedly San Francisco has a poor record of curbing scofflaws — is typically only about a third of the budget.

We will now pause another five minutes while you rail against the cushy contract and generous pensions the Muni workers get.

The thing is, those contract were negotiated and hammered out in long, contentious sessions. They are what they are.

The cruel fact is, if Muni runs out of money, cuts routes permanently and jobs are lost, we aren’t going to care who got what.

So what do we have going forward? Well, based on what’s happened in other parts of the world, Muni is hoping 80 percent of riders return. But SFMTA’s senior analyst, Jonathan Rewers, said at the board meeting that the returning percentage could be as low as 20 percent.

Where will they go? There’s lots of talk about pushing people back in their cars. That makes sense for corona-axious BART riders, although if you drive into the city you’ve got to find a place to park. And you hope your windows are intact when you return. Driving a car in the city, especially downtown, is a lousy option.

More likely, I’d say, will be that ridership will be up on Muni Metro light rail. My guess is the rail cars are more popular than buses. And in words I never thought I would say — the Central Subway could be a real improvement for trips downtown.

Now, here’s the real deal. Don’t you think that at some point Muni is going to say, “Things are so bad that we need to put a bond measure on the ballot to fund public transit.”

Voters generally support those, but they may not be so enthusiastic now. Muni needs to remind us it is a good option.

It needs to be as on time as possible. It needs to find places, like mornings at West Portal, when riders stack up in crowds because there aren’t enough seats, and increase service. And it needs to demonstrate security, security security, so people feel safe.

The urban think tank SPUR did an interesting dive into Muni’s troubles, headlined “Muni’s long-term problem.” It warned “Muni may have no choice but to balance its budget with more fare increases and deep service cuts.”

The story was well researched. It was full of stats and graphs.

It was from 2005.

You probably dislike those appeals for money from newsletters. Me too. But there’s only one way to keep this going. Could see your way clear to send me nothing? Zero? Nada? The newsletter is free. Just subscribe here.

You can say they are playing baseball, but this isn’t a season.

It has been fascinating to see how often baseball players, coaches and managers have been no more than cautiously optimistic about re-starting Major League Baseball.

As A’s pitcher Jake Diekman did today in the Chronicle, “I honestly feel like this is just going to get shut down in a week. Or everyone is going to opt out.”

As I said in this week's Santa Rosa Press Democrat, if it is going to be a 60-game exhibition, MLB may as well try some innovations.

But I’d also say that players are taking this pandemic a lot more seriously than many people — including ownership? — thought. And there may very well be talk of a coordinated strategy with some of the biggest names in the game.

Mike Trout has already expressed concerns, saying that he’s in contact with several other players. Buster Posey also spoke up. Could this be a situation where they all opt out at once to share the impact?

And I still think it is very sneaky of the owners who are trying to get fans back in the stands before a game has been played. How do the players feel?

Share the newsletter? Sure, if you’d like. Just click the button.

And if you thought baseball had problems, check out the National Football League

For a lot of reasons, football is going to be the sport that is going to have the most problems with a re-start. I said so in my Santa Rosa 49ers blob post. And even Dr. Anthony Fauci said so on CNN.

It isn’t just the close proximity, although that’s a problem. Football players are right up in each other’s faces on every play.

But football also has more 300-pound players than any other sport. And yes, these are elite athletes, but check out the news stories about triathletes who got COVID and nearly died.

There is going to be a big push from the NFL suits to play the games. But unless there are some dramatic improvements in testing and treatment, I don’t like their chances.

Also, my column (above) has some thoughts on changing the nickname of the Redskins. (They should, obviously.)

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Comments and compliments gladly accepted. Criticism, not so much. Twitter: @cwnevius