Source that was found by the mtc staff. Thats whats before you today. The resolution that the mta board of directors passed approving a free muni for low income youth did not specify what Funding Source the money came from. It left that question open. But in terms of the funding that were talking about, we have to make clear that the mtc provided in the approval for the use for this very type of pilot, that in fact it was found the funding at the request of someone in fact commissioner tiny of marin, so that this kind of a pilot that were talking about could be funded with this money. So the idea that was put out there, that somehow this is not what this funding was intended for, respectfully is not happened at the mtc. But the main point that i want to make is this. You know, i dont know that anyone herei0÷s un questions the importance of investing in the maintenance of muni, and improving the reliability of the system, and making sure that we have a system that works for every rider
Ive been public in my skepticism of the free muni for youth program. My skepticism has been based on and my belief the program would come from munis operating money. Were now seeing thats the case that muni is considering using some of this Maintenance Program rather than to invest that money in the system to purchase more vehicles, to rehabilitate vehicles and otherwise make the system more reliable. Once the free muni Pilot Program ends there will be enormous pressure to extend the program and that pressure almost certainly will include using more funding that could be used to improve munis reliability. Reasonable minds can differ on whether you should ride muni for free. I respect the views of the supporters of this program, my free youth fares is different than the operational funding to pay for the program. The most important thing we can do for all san franciscans, and particularly for those who are dependent on muni for their transportation needs, is to provide a reliable system
Programs. To the extent thatmine is failing or hasjpn,1 to address those issues, it is not because of somehowqpihb making Public Transportation more accessible to poor kids in this city. I think its simply unfair to place that responsibility on that group. We all have ajr n responsibilito make sure that we have a reliable system, and the working families and the poor families of this city are as interested in increasing the reliability as any. But to simply say that we have to choose one or the other, to me, is not accurate. It is not a choice that has to be made. It is not how San Francisco should operate its Public Transit system. We can have an accessible system that is reliable. The two are not at adds odds with one another. So, colleagues, i have circulated through the clerk a set of amendments that provides language that reflects the position that indeed you can maintain the system, and still provide accessibility to low income families, and kids in the city. And so i hereby ma
Different times, not only in these chambers but also beforehm the metropolitan transportation commission. And i . mx certainly respect supervisor wiener and his position, and i think that he was correctonnny in saying thate are you know that reasonable minds can disagree with this specific matter. But lets just step back a little bit and talk about sort of what were talking about here. The issue of the free muni for youth Pilot Project has been somethingyd r rpa this board s been dealing with for more than a year. And at different times, his different actions have been taken by[ cnc city agencies , including a resolution that was supported by Seven Members of this board, urging the San Francisco mta to begin a free muni for all youth program, Pilot Program here in San Francisco. The matter went to the mta board the proposal so that it views of some of the people who had voted against the original proposal, and limited the scope to allow for free muni for low income youth. And some of t
Predicating the resolution of those issues solely or primarily on whether or not to put this thats the right way to frame this. The last thing that i would say is, as you correctly noted, the board of supervisors has acted before on this. I dont know that there has been any new information or evidence thats been presented here about the pros and cons of this system. The fact is that the folks who have raised concerns about the free muni for youth for low income youth pilot have consistently been against that. And i respect that. But there is nothing new that theyre saying in terms, respectjjp 9 terms of their opposition. So the amendments that are before you reflect the fact that this board of supervisors has been on record before, and we believe should be on record again, asking that we commit to making this pilot a reality on the premise that working on this pilot that makes muni accessible does not preclude maintaining the system and if so it is in that spirit that this amendment i