But the one thing that you see in every other bus system on the planet (that Muni hasn't even attempted) is to guarantee that a bus does not arrive EARLIER than the posted schedule at a stop.

For someone who has to be somewhere (catch a bus to work or make jury duty) and the bus arrives every 20 minutes, you are 'out of luck' if the driver was 'fast' that day. We need to know that if we get to the bus stop when the schedule says the bus will be there and that we haven't missed it! Buses do get delayed, but there is no excuse to add to the problem by skipping stops and then beating the schedule to exacerbate the ridership reliability.

Muni can (and should) guarantee control that the buses NEVER LEAVE EARLY FROM THIER PRIMARY STOPS. I mean, really, when was the last time you scheduled transportation for someone and then left early without them... just because you had a few green lights before meeting up with them?

Two bus lines, each of which hits every other stop (with occasional transfer stops where both lines meet)

Both lines should be faster, stop density would be high, and appropriate transfers should get you to any stop without too much trouble.

I realize it's not as normal as local/limited service but it reaps more benefits in cases where few people travel the entire system.

Unfortunately, our home is not accessible and the slope of the garage cut is too steep to easily crutch up. The problem with having ample upper body strength and crutches is that it ends up putting all the load on the wrists and I imagine that the nasty side effect of torn tendons and ligaments on an ankle could be a broken wrist. Whee!

@jim, thanks as well.

The ADA requires that people with disabilities be served with abled people to the maximum extent possible as separate but equal never really is equal.

This problem has been solved, and the solution is to have rapid spaced service overlaid or laid next to slower closer service.

-marc

1. Standard Muni for the vast majority of people. Stops are placed 3-4 times per mile for regular buses and once per mile for express buses. Fewer stops combined with POP, bus lane enforcement signal priority would probably cut number of buses and drivers necessary to run the system by 25%.

2. Paratransit for those in wheelchairs or others who have long term mobility impairments.

3. For ambulatory seniors and those temporarily disabled such as marcos, we can use taxis to take people to and from their homes to the nearest transit hub. This service could easily be funded by the efficiency gains of not having Muni to service this population.

My understanding is that taxis now fall under the MTA. The translink system could be enhanced to work with taxis. Doing so would allow specific translink cards to be loaded with taxi fares for trips less than .5 miles to get people to a bus stop for seniors or those with temporary disabilities. Door to door service is a much more dignified option for those that need it. It is also much more cost effective than running our buses with 1 block stop spacing.

Sorry to hear about your ankle--it must be uncomfortable and frustrating. Could you rent a little electric scooter for the duration? Here's hope for a speedy recovery.

I did enjoy a slight pity party when heading to the orthotics store in a CarShare Prius on Divisadero to pick up this boot. Some schmoe was waiting in his SUV blocking the 24 bus stop for traffic to clear to take a streetside parking space. I had no compunctions about blocking traffic for my immediate needs, so I took the space. As I finished a perfect parallel parking job, the SUV starts to honk at me, and as I pull out the crutches, he slinks away. Sweet.

Now Tom Radulovich mentions that seniors and the disabled deserve rapid transit as well, and that cutting proximity of lines and stops will benefit them. Assuming that my crutchedness is a proxy precursor for senior disability, my question becomes one of whether or not the added distance between destinations and access to transit eats up more time than more rapid vehicle speeds earn given the slower pace of locomotion?

Sick of being trapped in the house, I crutched it from 16th and SVN to Rainbow Grocery on Monday. Halfway home, I felt like my wrists were going to snap holding up my body weight. It took me an hour to do the round trip as an otherwise fit person.

Even getting from my house to the 22 Fillmore or CarShare lot on 16th/Hoff and back is an ordeal, especially with any added weight from shopping, and you'd better hope that wherever you're going is adjacent parking or a bus stop. As CalTrain is a candle in the dark, lighting up everything right next to the candle, Muni for many disabled only serves that within a finite radius.

Now imagine if we're going to be placing bus lines 1/2 mile apart, with stops 1/4 mile apart. Has anyone done any math on the added burden that such "service centralization" aka "consolidation" will place on those who can't power walk to the stop or station?

The TEP already tilts the playing field towards transit choice riders at the cost of the transit dependent. And this might be defensible policy for the mobile and healthy. But this notion that seniors and the disabled will see a net win from a reconfiguration has yet to be demonstrated.

If it turns out that the average speed from destination to spaced stops evaluated against increased vehicle speeds and added service, is slow enough to make the TEP a net loss for seniors and disabled, then what?

-marc

The point of stop reduction is not in and of itself to reduce trip time on any run, rather to create savings that can pay for another vehicle to better service the line with an additional run.

The questions begged here is whether it makes sense to consolidate stops on the 38, 14 or 9 local lines which are to/have limited service?

And the illusion is being painted here that this is a win win win situation, when in reality it is a trade off which benefits and harms some constituencies more than others.

My read is that the goal here is to realize Rescue Muni's and SPUR's common dream: for Muni to be downsized until all it can do is to deliver commuters to downtown, on the commuters' dimes, within 33 minutes.

The stated goal of the TEP is to make Muni more appealing to transit choice riders which means trading off proximity of service for frequency and/or speed. It is not axiomatic that such a one-sided tradeoff is in the best interests of most San Franciscans.

-marc

MUNI should really have that. I think it not only benefit the bus, but could improve overall traffic flow for cars as well. The problem is on a busy road when the bus is trying to pull out, every car tries to beat the bus and squeeze by it. Not only is this unsafe, but the conflict between the bus and the car actually slow everyone down. The few cars that beat the bus win. But every car behind lose. They stuck for the same amount of time that the bus is stuck. If people would have coordinate and let the bus pull off smoothly, I think the overall traffic flow will improve.

That say I don't think our politicians have the guts constraint the car driving constituents.

So glad I don't have to depend on VTA. You cannot be spontaneous when the bus only runs once an hour. I get spoiled when I'm in NY City and don't have to worry about when the last subway train is leaving. Some lines don't run at night, but they are mostly overlapping services.

For the outbound 2/3/4 lines on Sutter St, there is a far-side stop for Polk and then a near-side stop for Van Ness. On Geary, they consolidated this at some point so that the 38/38L lines stop mid-block. It serves connections to the 19-Polk and the various Van Ness lines fairly well. It also helps a bit that the bus no longer has to wait for the light at Van Ness to reach the stop.

This is the kind of stop consolidation that can work well. Everyone has to walk a little farther but it really helps efficiency. I'm all for close stops in the hilly areas, but in flatter areas, there have to be some compromises. What we have now doesn't work very well for most people.

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

You may wonder what this movie has to do with Muni stop consolidation, but it's just a macrocosm/microcosm refocusing of the lens.

then roll it out. muni must be one of the slowest transit agencies in the nation. I've WALKED, and kept up with a bus on van ness for ~5 blocks. that's not right.

they need to do this ASAP, not by next year. just try it like we are trying 17th st. plaza. no studies, just do it.

Yes indeed, the new addition of a 9L is a great solution to the problem.

@John Murphy

I get your point, and I think we're saying the same thing to some degree. Running infrequent buses that stop infrequently can make it easier to meet a schedule, but compare VTA ridership to Muni's and you see why I'm afraid of Muni emulating that strategy.

One thing Muni does well - that makes it possible for it to accommodate the diversity of trips it handles and which contributes to its high ridership - is it runs frequently enough and stops often enough (to different degrees on different lines) that taking Muni doesn't require a plan. You can happen upon a bus stop and reasonably expect to catch a bus without killing your day waiting.

Anecdotal horror stories notwithstanding, this is how I've ridden Muni since I was 9 years old. A lot of people take the bus this way. Muni service as it currently exists allows to spontaneous trips to be taken without a car. I'm not saying stop consolidation will destroy this, but if it worsens it by degree it affects ridership by degree.

The argument I see unfolding in these comments is over a matter of degree - whether a small increase in convenience for some riders is greater than or less than another small increase in inconvenience for other riders. And the slice of Muni's budget consumed by this argument is very very small.

It's worth asking if this is a good argument to have, or if our energy as transit advocates would be better spent on improvements that will yield bigger returns on our efforts.

Down here in Santa Clara, VTA has appallingly low frequency. But those buses run on a schedule, so as long as I can plan on when to take the bus, I can take the bus, and not waste my time. Theoretically MUNI runs on a schedule but only a fool would look at the timetables and plan on that.

Note that VTA also has much further stop spacing than is seen in San Francisco, yet the poor and handicapped down here do use the service. I stick out like a sore thumb on the 55/60/etc... Then the VTA screwed it up on their Light Rail line, putting the stops way too close, and that light rail line is a complete joke.

I'm all for enforcement as well, but that's frankly going to be harder to implement. Yesterday on 24th St, I gesticulated wildly at a double parked Cabbie who was blocking the 48. The 48 was delayed at least 30 seconds by this cab driver - but how are you going to stop that behavior? By the time you can ticket him, he's gone.

SFMTA Transit Effectiveness Project recommendations