CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Transit law gets green light
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The City will legally require San Francisco businesses with 20 or more employees to offer workers one of three transit benefits by the end of the year.
The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the business mandate Tuesday, but unlike previous measures — including forcing businesses to provide workers such benefits as health care and sick leave that drew the ire of the business community — this one came with the backing of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
Supervisors also promised that the mandate would cost business owners no additional money and even save them money.
The law, introduced by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, requires businesses to offer one of three pro-transit options to workers.
They include participation in a program offered by the federal government that allows employers to provide employees the benefit of deducting up to $115 of pretax wages for a commuter check to purchase monthly transit passes.
Under that program, employers save up to 9 percent in payroll taxes while employees save up to 40 percent on their monthly transit cost. After one year, a $45 monthly Muni Fast Pass would cost the employee $27 per month.
“There is no additional cost to business owners,” Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said. “They have the ability to say that, as part of the wages, the costs associated with the transit pass can be offered as pre-tax. This is not yet another tax imposed on business.”
Mirkarimi proposed the law as a way to cut down on carbon emissions by boosting the number of public-transit riders. The proposal is the first of its kind in the nation.
“Getting Fast Passes into the hands of more Muni riders will help us improve the system,” said Judson True, a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency spokesman.
To meet the requirement, which takes effect Dec. 22, businesses could also offer to pay for a Muni Fast Pass or another transit pass of equal value, or provide free transportation to and from the workplace.
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:40 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 8, 2008 re: "Transit law gets green light"
Report as inappropriate
10:50 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 6, 2008
re: "Transit law gets green light"
Report as inappropriate
9:52 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 6, 2008
re: "Transit law gets green light"
Report as inappropriate
2:42 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 23, 2008
re: "Commuter checks could be mandated in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
3:58 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 23, 2008
re: "Commuter checks could be mandated in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
10:32 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 21, 2008
re: "Commuters ready to launch"
Report as inappropriate
2:41 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 7, 2008
re: "Federal bill to include $13.5M for S.F. transportation"
Report as inappropriate
2:18 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 7, 2008
re: "Commuter checks could be mandated in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
12:28 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 7, 2008
re: "Commuter checks could be mandated in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
9:14 AM MST on Mon., May. 12, 2008
re: "Caltrain deaths a fact of engineers’ lives"
Report as inappropriate
5:53 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 30, 2008
re: "Caltrain cameras would aid investigation process"
Report as inappropriate
11:35 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008
re: "Sixth death on tracks in 2008 is woman, 63"
Report as inappropriate
10:39 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008
re: "Bay Area public transit as popular as ever"
Report as inappropriate
8:32 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 24, 2008
re: "Bay Area public transit as popular as ever"
Report as inappropriate
9:03 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 24, 2008
re: "Bay Area public transit as popular as ever"
Report as inappropriate
5:06 PM MST on Thu., Feb. 14, 2008
re: "Lack of funds may dead-end transit projects"
Report as inappropriate
6:07 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 31, 2007
re: "Federal bill to include $13.5M for S.F. transportation"
Report as inappropriate
3:29 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 31, 2007
re: "Federal bill to include $13.5M for S.F. transportation"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
I don't know what small business would have more than 20 employees, but I suppose this targets larger businesses or chain businesses that do not provide transit benefits (ie Safeway or larger restaurants). I think the City should make its own workers participate in a program like this instead of handing out free passes or parking spaces.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
Bad, Bad, Bad! Are we really trying to drive small businesses out of SF? First we nail them with health insurance costs - OK, that's expensive but is a social necessity. But now we nail them with transit benefits? At what point do they say "Enough, I'm outta here!" If you want big business benefits for everyone, then only big businesses can afford to do business here, and SF will be one giant, albeit beautiful, Mall. Is that what we want? High payroll taxes, insurance costs, transit costs, and all this for a city that has the highest per capita budget in the United States! Does anyone know that? With a 6.5 BILLION dollar budget, that works out to a cost of $8,000 per man, woman and child in SF - more than LA, NY, etc. So now we throw another expense onto small businesses. What's wrong with this picture? Vote out our "Progressive" supervisors before the city implodes completely. Sigh....
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is why it's called a small business and not a big one where benefits are galore. If a small business can penny pinch their employees, they have no choice but go elsewhere later. A new law can't force a small business to provide benefits to their employees, they'll go belly up.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'm not familiar with the Federal Law that is referenced in the article. Please specify the Federal Law.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
A smart proposal for Commuter Checks or something similar. I work for SFSU, and while this legislation is does not have any jurisdiction on State of California property, we are the only California State University offering this program to its employees. It is pre-taxed from your payroll, and I felt it was simple enough to spend a couple of minutes to fill out the paperwork and place my order online. And presto! My check came in the mail. Even easier, instead of asking for a check, you can have an actual pass, and even BART tickets mailed to you. Translink now offers automatic uploading of electronic cash to your account too. This means you don't have to hassle with claiming the check.
0 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Ferry project sounds like a good one. With the the cities and state broke, how will it be paid for?
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
While this program could have considerable benefits, how is MUNI going to handle the increased ridership when it appears fully-challenged servicing existing ridership?
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Ah the communist nation of San Francisco and Comrade Smikirmi is at it again. I don't think they should require small businesses to offer this to employees. If Matthew the coffee shop barista wants to be paid for his commute, then he should find an office job. Those companies offer commuter benefits. When will the regulation of small business in SF end?
0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Getting more city employees out of their cars is actually quite easy: cut the number of parking spaces available to employees, or make them more expensive.
2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Regarding what grumpy Martin Engel said in the first comment. Maybe Caltrain has a legitimate concern in wanting to cover their a**. I know for a fact that the families many of those yahoos who walk around the downed crossing gates and right in front of the trains, ignoring blaring horns, lights and bells seek out the first ambulance chasing lawyer they can find and sue the railroad. Personal responsibility in today's world? You've got to be kidding! It was all that bad old railroad's fault, even if their beloved was drunk and laying on the tracks or had his head half way up his you-know-what!
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Martin Engel said:
Cameras? A million dollar grant? Half a million for the cameras? Why? Will that make the tracks any safer? I don't think so. Then, what are they for? They will relieve Caltrain and its personnel from any liability by documenting how none of the accidents/fatalities are their fault. In Mike Rosenberg's article, he even uses the headline to make my point, only in a much more neutral way. (To put it bluntly, it's a free "cover-their-a**" investment!) The other reason is that getting "free" money, like grants, is what government organizations do. Getting and spending the money is more important than solving any problem. The money comes from the 1-B bond issue, one billion of which was earmarked for "public-transit system safety enhancements." How cameras will make the train corridor safer is an explanation I would like to hear. Fencing? Four-Quad Gates? Sure. But cameras? Post-mortem?
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Engineer not conductor. Engineers are opereating the train.
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Be happy that people with insight and vision found a way to agree and build BART decades ago...I moved to Hawaii (from SF) and my commute wastes 3 hours each day on Oahu (just to get to work) by car. If I take the bus, add an hour each way. It's just as fast to bicycle the entire distance (35 miles to Waianae). Why? Because our city council killed "rail transit" 16 years ago...and they're are still not in agreement! I would recommend bicycling to others but the lack of adequate (safe) bike paths makes it so dangerous I won't even take my children riding to the beach...so stop whining and ride BART, MUNI, or your BIKE...It's the only long term solution for a sustainable future
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'm looking forward to the silver lining, when some of the new, more affluent, better-connected riders pitch a fit about how difficult and miserable it is to get around on the bus. No insult to the drivers: you're stuck, too, and make my day when you try to get us all on board and where we need to go.
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I wish I can believe that people are starting to care about our environment by taking public transit, but I think it has more to do with high gas prices than anything else.
8 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
MUNI's inability to service existing lines didn't stop the T-line from being built. The city will likely continue such transit line construction to create the illusion that adequate transit service exists in any number of neighborhoods, for any number of housing developments. As far as I can tell, these new lines are being built (as selling points) to satisfy developers as much as serving ridership.
53 agree | 50 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'm with Seven on this one. How is yet another MUNI line going to be adequately serviced when MUNI cannot even adequately serve existing lines?
53 agree | 59 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Seven said:
Couldn't we skip the central subway and use the money to actually improve Muni?
55 agree | 55 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree