THE PROPOSED MUNI fare hike is wrong on just about every possible count. It's a deeply regressive tax. It discourages public transportation use (and thus encourages more people to drive, increasing traffic, parking, and pollution problems). It's contrary to San Francisco's transit-first policy. And if the past is any indication, it could very well wind up bringing in less money than anyone projects, and create even more of a budget mess for the bus system.

Supporters of the fare hike, which would jack up the price of riding Muni from $1.25 to $1.50, say San Francisco has among the lowest transit fares of any major city. Perhaps so – but that's something to be proud of, not an excuse to squeeze more money out of the people who rely on Muni to get around town.

In an ideal (or even slightly more rational) world, Muni would be free: the big employers, downtown retail outlets, and entertainment venues that survive only because there's a reliable transportation system to bring workers to the offices and customers to the sales floors would pay reasonable taxes, the wealthy owners of expensive cars would pay higher annual fees, and people who use the city streets to park their cars would pay slightly more for their neighborhood parking permits. That would dramatically increase transit ridership, reduce traffic congestion, and make the city a more livable place.

State law (which requires that 33 percent of revenues come from the fare box) makes free bus service unlikely anytime soon – but keeping Muni fares low is a rare way to make a truly progressive tax policy that encourages environmentally sound behavior.

Remember: for a lot of people, paying the increased fare – an extra 50¢ a day, $10 a month, $120 a year – is a real financial burden.

The fare hike would also be dumb economics. Economists who have studied urban transit systems say price hikes have a direct effect on ridership – and at a certain point, so many people stop riding that the increased revenue the planners are hoping for never materializes. That's certainly been true in San Francisco: steep Muni fare hikes in the 1980s and early 1990s (when the cost of a bus ride went from 25¢ to 50¢, then 60¢, then $1) often led to immediate short-term revenue shortfalls, as people switched from buses to cars or decided to walk instead of ride.

The most infuriating element of this proposal is that it isn't necessary. There are clear alternatives, and they all start with the same premise: car owners and big employers should subsidize cheap transit, not the other way around. A citywide transit-assessment fee on new commercial development is an obvious source of money. So is an increase in the neighborhood parking fee, particularly for second and third cars. If Muni riders have to pay $120 more a year, why shouldn't car owners pay the same? We also like Sup. Ross Mirkarimi's idea of assessing a fee on the owners of giant, gas-guzzling (and street-damaging) vehicles like Hummers and mega-SUVs. In fact, all SUV owners who want neighborhood parking permits should pay a premium – they take up more space, leaving less parking for everyone else.

Money's tight all over, and Muni needs more money to avoid service cuts (which would also be also a disaster). But raising fares isn't the way to get that money. The supervisors should reject the fare hike and raise fees on cars and development to make up the difference.