The armed security guards who walk alongside the Muni workers collecting cash from buses, transit-sales desks and fare machines will be giving up their handguns if San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim has her way.

Kim wants to revise the Municipal Transportation Agency’s proposed six-year, $38.3 million contract with Cypress Security, eliminating the armed guards the transit agency has used for decades.

“Small businesses handle cash every day without security guards, so why does the MTA need them?” Kim asked when the contract came up for approval at last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting. “I’m troubled that we have armed guards at the MTA.”

The vote on the contract was put off so the supervisors could collect more information about how armed guards are used by Muni and other transit agencies.

Eliminating the armed guards would save the city about $1 million over the length of the contract, Kim said, as well as protect citizens from the consequences of a gunfight that could occur on a crowded public street.

“It would be better to give the cash to an armed robber so we don’t have a shooting,” Kim said. “I can’t support having more guns on the street than we have to.”

Transit officials argue that armed guards are necessary.

Unarmed guards “couldn’t defend themselves or those in their care from a person with a firearm,” transit officials said in a statement.

Watching the cash

Unlike BART, which has its own armed police force, Muni relies on private guards, most of them unarmed, to provide security.

Unarmed guards patrol bus yards and platforms and respond to reports of graffiti and other vandalism. Armed guards, who make up about 18 percent of the security force, are used only to escort workers who collect cash from the buses and streetcars and from places like the cable-car fare kiosks at Powell Street and Fisherman’s Wharf and AT&T Park after a Giants game.

MTA officials argue that guards with guns are an important safety measure that’s routinely used by transit agencies across the nation, including BART, AC Transit and the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority. None of the transit agencies the city surveyed in response to Kim’s request uses police to guard fare collectors.

“SFMTA needs armed guards to protect the public, employees, revenue and infrastructure against any possible use of force,” said Paul Rose, a spokesman for the agency.

Fare collectors worried

Rose also warned that eliminating the guards could cause labor problems, because the unionized workers who handle money collection for Muni could argue that dropping armed protectors creates unsafe working conditions.

For Anthony Hale, one of those money collectors, an armed guard is a basic safety requirement.

“When we do collections late at night, we often can’t park our city vehicles real close,” Hale said. Plenty of people watch the workers pick up the cash, and then “we have to walk a block or two with money and passes,” he said. “Doing that without an armed guard would be very nerve-racking.”

Supervisor Scott Wiener argued that Muni workers carrying large amounts of cash need guards with guns, not unarmed chaperones.

“None of us like guns,” Wiener said. “I would love to have a gun-free community with no violence and no one victimizing people.”

But that’s not reality, Wiener said.

'Sitting ducks’

“We have workers who are retrieving cash from fare machines and transporting cash,” he said. “That’s where the money is, and criminals know that’s where the money is.”

Eliminating those armed guards could “turn the workers into sitting ducks,” Wiener said. “We should be very careful before going down that route.”

Although Kim’s proposal took the rest of the board by surprise, she said she has been thinking for years about whether armed security guards are a solution to violence in the city or just another part of the problem.

“UC Hastings asked me two years ago if I would support arming their security guards, and I said no,” Kim said in an interview. “I think we need less guns on the street, not more.”

Private guards with guns already can be found at banks, check-cashing storefronts and other places that handle a lot of cash, as well as at hotels, hospitals, office buildings and universities. Kim, however, argued that the transit agency’s security guards don’t have enough training to be trusted with guns in a dangerous situation.

The armed guards have 14 hours of state-required training and 16 hours of weapons training by Cypress Security. But “there are issues with the SFPD, (and) they get a ton more training,” Kim said. “We can’t argue that we’re safe if security guards pull out their guns.”

Nonlethal alternatives

Kim suggested that the transit agency look at providing the guards who accompany the fare collectors with nonlethal weapons, possibly including electric stun guns, which San Francisco police are barred from carrying.

Supervisors David Campos and John Avalos sided with Kim at last week’s board meeting. The security-guard contract — and the question of armed guards — is up for discussion at Tuesday’s meeting, but the supervisors are unlikely to make a final decision. Any revised contract has to be approved by the transit agency’s board before it can presented to the supervisors.

Kim is confident an agreement can be reached that eliminates the armed guards, but still keeps Muni workers safe.

“We know Muni drivers get assaulted, but we don’t have armed guards on buses,” she said. “Guns on the street may turn into a terrible tragedy.”

John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @ jfwildermuth