Older people use this line a lot during the day. There does not need to be fewer number of stops just to prove *our* point about cutting stops makes economic sense, when that it doesn’t in all cases.

We who use this line hope it does not go to every 30 minutes for any reason.

Likewise the L has plenty of stop it doesn’t need. 15th Ave comes to mind (two revenue stops, one non revenue stop in each direction for that one block!). West of 19th, if the L moved to stops every three blocks, you’d still be at most one block away from a stop.. but you’d have eliminated nearly 30% of the stops. The train drivers have a hard enough time stopping for the stops signs already, stop reduction would speed things up and make their lives easier.

we need MORE consolidation of stops, not less.

No, there are NO connecting routes/lines at Polk & McAllister, The only line serving that intersection is the 5-Fulton. The 19-Polk doesn’t turn onto Polk until Geary, and turns off of Polk at Eddy in the other direction.

So again, there is no reason for a stop at Polk & McAllister, on the same block as the inbound stop at Van Ness & McAllister. And even if there WAS a connecting line there, there’s no reason people, even less mobile ones, couldn’t walk ONE flat block to get to that connection.

And there is another tactic that should be employed but unfortunately it hasn’t really been discussed: Transit Preferential Signaling. Did you know that it is installed on the Embarcadero and along the T-line? But did you also know that it isn’t being used effectively? So Muni has spent the money implementing the technology but are not getting the benefits that they should be getting. For example, where the T crosses King the light has Transit Preferential Signaling equipment yet the streetcars can stop there for several minutes at a time! The powers that be didn’t want to disrupt all the car drivers going on and off of the freeway there. And follow a T streetcar down Third Street sometime. It is shocking how often the streetcars get a red light. By using the existing equipment and virtually no additional money some of the lines such as the F and the T could be greatly sped up.

One often reads complaints about similar close stop spacing in the Mission. If twenty plus riders board/alight at each corner, the bus is DOING ITS JOB. This too is a dense neighborhood with destinations/trip generators every block. The real issue on Mission is auto traffic. Even if the buses only stopped at the BART stations, they would still be delayed by cars.

Easier to enact? The very fact that stop consolidation is difficult, even in this economic climate, says a lot about how spoiled San Franciscans are about their bus stop spacing (the 28, 29, and 18 all stop every block through the Sunset) and how ridiculous the process is to change something so obvious.

A few examples:

5-Fulton, Inbound: TWO stops on McAllister Street, between Van Ness & Polk. TWO, on the SAME block, one at the corner of McAllister & Van Ness, and one at the corner of McAllister & Polk (you can get from one stop to the next without crossing any street).

31-Balboa, Outbound: Same thing, two stops on the SAME block, one at Eddy & Larkin, another at Eddy & Polk.

There are countless examples of this on multiple lines. I don’t see how removing one of two stops on the SAME block (blocks that have no hill whatsoever) would impede the ability of seniors or persons with disabilities from being able to easily access the bus/train.

Does anyone have details about Dave Snyder’s planned transit riders union? I’d like to contribute to it.

Furthermore, any stop changes would only be a one-time savings. The only robust solution to a projected multi-year MTA deficit is NEW REVENUE. IMO Transit advocates ought to be uniting behind the cry for more budget equity through progressive revenue measures, not grasping for an opportunity to replicate VTA’s level of bus service here in SF.