I did not mean to imply that younger, healthier folks are not transit dependent, rather that the constituency supporting the idea of removing bus stops are not the ones most likely to be negatively impacted by it at this point in their lives.

There are articles of faith which have gained credence as means to speed up the system. Each one of them makes simplifying assumptions, assumptions which will get tangled up in the political process because they gloss over inconvenient truths.

Removing stops is one of them, and that is most likely to attract a legitimate Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit.

Another is this notion that vehicles pulling back out into traffic are significantly delayed citywide, all the time.

When we look at the impacts of stops: approach, dwell time and reintegration into traffic, we need to do so empirically, based on the evidence and political considerations, rather than to take the assumptions of MTA staff as unassailable givens.

MTA staff took community input on their alignment plan, but apparently the public process for the TEP shut down prior to the discussion of stop “consolidation.”

At the end of the day, the only reason why stops slow down a line is that they are getting used by people. If stops are not getting used, then they are not slowing down a line.

My bet is that the stops being considered for elimination are used but not often. If this is the case, then it is not out of the question that were other treatments put in place to speed up a line (TPS, vehicle investment from line consolidation, enforcement), more frequent service would mean that those infrequently used stops would not cause a problem for most runs, given that the infrequent users would be picked up by another of the more frequent vehicles. More intense service obviates the “problem” of too many stops.

But, no, it is not going to be okay to cut out “redundant” lines, lightly used but essential community service and stops, all three and expect anyone but commuters to be happy with the result.

-marc

Why do you assume that the young and healthy are not transit dependent? – it’s not mutually exclusive

Beware of “problems” asserted by the “waving of the hands” they become articles of faith.

-marc

Sure, I could ride my bike to the stop which translates the impacts into an ellipse, but try using a Muni bike rack if one of your feet can take you down in shooting pain if articulated improperly.

It should speak for itself that the only ones arguing for “consolidating” stops to facilitate commuter travel are younger and healthier, not mobility impaired in any way or otherwise transit dependent.

-marc

1. He indicated that he would like to remove bus stops but not right now because of the budget crisis. On the contrary, the budget crisis presents a great opportunity to introduce the bus stop consolidation plan since cutting stops increases efficiency and improves service, thereby increasing ridership. Presenting the issue as a choice between cutting bus stops system-wide or cutting a few routes entirely, the vast majority of people would likely support the bus stop removal option. So, instead of saying “Our budget forces us to cut routes in order to retain existing stops”, he could say, “Our budget forces us to cut stops in order to retain existing routes”. You might still want to cut some redundant routes while cutting stops.

2. “We know how citizens adhere strictly to bus-only lanes.” This is a not a God-given situation. SFPD does not enforce bus lane restrictions because we as a city have CHOSEN to not enforce them in order to favor cars over transit vehicles even in designated bus-only lanes. It is a bit discouraging that Mr. Ford did not suggest that fixing this is one of his priorities.

Done right, the work orders let us know where our money is going better. That is how this SFPD shake down of the SFMTA came to light.

I’m also concerned that this practice leads to the buck always stopping with the MTA. If Muni is getting a bill from every department under the rotunda, who are they sending work orders to?

Voters insulated Muni’s budget from the grabby hands of the General Fund for exactly this reason.