Is SFMTA Holding Muni Hostage?

Thinning, truncating, or outright suspending service on certain Muni lines has been in talks for a few months now. As cuts go into effect, their repercussions offer a bleak insight into the future of our reportedly struggling transportation division. Stops trimmed of several lines or reduced to an inconvenient stump. Inflated wait times on the city’s busiest routes. Cancelling service on routes that barely survived the pandemic. Anticipating a $320 million deficit, these rash decisions seem warranted, but are they? Is punishing local Muni riders, who have tolerated years of false starts and broken promises, really SFMTA’s only hope? SF Muni Board Director Steve Heminger says they have other options. 

“Help me, I’m poor”

SFMTA first announced their planned slash-and-burn of Muni services in November 2024, amid a storm of systemic upheavals. It may be why we didn’t notice any cutbacks until recently, when they began to take effect. Additional, more desperate changes are on their way. Strangely, even crowded routes are finding themselves on the chopping block, like the 30S. 

An already-shortened supplement to the crammed 30-Stockton line, the 30S is a vital artery for Chinatown and Caltrain commuters. It currently operates inside the regular 30-Stockton’s route, which begins in the Presidio across from Crissy Field. The 30S (“S” for Short) however starts at Van Ness and North Point and ends at the Caltrain station, where its parent line ends. The 30S is a relief valve for the 30-Stockton, a time-honored route with some of Muni’s highest ridership. And yet, SFMTA plans to cut the 30S past the quick, terminating at Union Square instead. 

“The SFMTA emphasized the longer 30-Stockton route will be unchanged. Riders can also use the 45-Union/Stockton and T-Third Street rail line to access Chinatown from Caltrain and SoMa and vice versa, officials said.” (SF Examiner). 

I can’t help but wonder if SFMTA designed this scheme to redirect riders onto their Third Street folly trolley. The half-assed, over-budget T-Third Street Chinatown extension is a well-overdue promise, intended to replace the Embarcadero Freeway. That double-decker deathtrap almost failed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. A similar structure in Oakland collapsed in the 1989 quake, accounting for two-thirds of the disaster’s fatalities. More than two generations later, the cost ballooned to $375 million for an embarrassing 1.7 miles of tracks. At this rate, it’ll be a long time before the glorified spur pays for itself.

All that money, and the train doesn’t even go to Fisherman’s Wharf. 

Are you a mid-day commuter like myself? Expect delays.

Another cut could poison mid-day commutes and draw shame from virtually every public transit system in the country. Reduced mid-day frequency, already in effect on some of the city’s busier routes, inflates wait times between buses. If you miss a train in Paris, London or New York, you can usually see the next one coming. The same was true (in pockets, at least) in San Francisco, until recently. Beginning February 1, the wait for a 43-Masonic, 24-Divisadero and strangely, the 38-Geary, swelled by at least two minutes. Two minutes might not sound like much, but if you’re running late for work, it can make all the difference. 

Not everyone who lives in SF works a 9–5 job. In addition to writing for Stuart on my own time, I work at a bar. Some days my shift starts at 2 PM. The bar is just over a mile from my apartment. Even now with Muni service as-is, I risk running late if I’m not out the door by 1:20 PM. I take an unreliable bus, one of those zig-zagging local routes that tourists have no business on. Trusting the scheduled 1:45 PM arrival is already a losing gamble. If SFMTA decreases frequency along my route, they’re sentencing me to a fate worse than death: showing up for work early. 

Saving money, hurting locals

One of SMFTA’s meaner threats is suspending service on perceived undertrafficked lines. The 21-Hayes, which barely survived the pandemic albeit in truncated form, is facing a firing squad once again. SFMTA appeared shocked to learn not all Hayes Valley, Alamo Square and NoPa residents are Uber-hailing plutocrats. Many actually depend on this neighborhood-specific line to fetch groceries, reach BART, and get to class at USF. According to Muni, you simply use a parallel route. So what if you’re elderly and the 5-Fulton is a dangerously steep walk whereas the 21-Hayes is right outside your door? SFMTA needs a new pair of shoes. 

Another bus with its neck on the line is the 2-Sutter. The 2-Sutter absorbs traffic that otherwise overburdens the packed 1-California and 38-Geary lines to the north and south respectively. It too was a casualty of the pandemic before it was thrust back into the Muni zeitgeist once again along with the 6-Haight/Parnassus and 21-Hayes. Now SFMTA is threatening to walk back their decision to reinstate service along those routes. Two out of three money-saving scenarios have the 2-Sutter and 21-Hayes slated for suspension, along with the 55-Dogpatch. 

Meanwhile, the 2-Sutter has been so packed recently, drivers have needed to skip stops. On a line with a twenty-minute headway. And SFMTA expects the 1 and 38 to accommodate orphans of the 2? 

SFMTA says they’re strapped for cash. Muni Board Director Steve Heminger disagrees.

In a recent interview with KQED, Muni Board Director Steve Heminger expressed his frustration with the transit agency’s rash decisions. He doesn’t think Muni should self-cannabilize to get by. Heminger said that even though the proposals had been presented as choices, “the choices are ‘cut transit service, cut transit service and cut transit service.’ I think we need a couple of options that don’t involve cutting transit service.”

Heminger then suggested that SFMTA “dip into its $140 million reserve” for the $15 million they plan to save through service cuts. It makes me wonder if SFMTA is cutting service for results or merely for attention. In 2024 when Jeff Tumlin was still Executive Director, he reportedly told the Muni Funding Working Group, “his goal in outlining the draconian service-reduction scenarios is to show the importance of coming up with a politically viable revenue solution that can get on the ballot in 2026. (KQED, November 2024) 

I can’t say for sure, but that $300 million deficit is starting to seem like another inflated figure. If intimidation is SFMTA’s plan to save a buck or two, it’s lazy and uncreative. It also makes those service cuts feel oddly personal. What does Muni gain besides mediocre savings by alienating the people it’s meant to serve? 

“Every one of these cuts will hurt riders who depend on Muni to get around the city and access city life,” said Dylan Fabris of the San Francisco Transit Riders. Fabris also told Streestblog SF that, “If they can help find money for free parking and transit for New Year, they should be able and expected to help find funding for this deficit as well.”