Friday: SFMTA Board Considers Final Proposals for Muni TEP Service Changes

An example of a proposed service change for the 48-Quintara and a new line, the 58-24th Street. Image: SFMTA

Service changes to 15 Muni lines are headed to the SFMTA Board of Directors for approval on Friday as part of the Transit Effectiveness Project. The proposals were revised through input at community meetings and approved by the board’s Policy and Governance Committee (PAG) last Friday. Many were fine-tuned largely to appease complaints from riders who would have to walk, at most, a few more blocks for more streamlined routes.

If you can’t make the City Hall board meeting on Friday at 8 a.m., you can weigh in on the proposals by emailing the SFMTA Board at Here’s the list of proposed line changes from an SFMTA email:

Here’s what we proposed, what we modified based on what we heard, and what we will be recommending to the SFMTA Board:

2 ClementThe PAG supports the recommended proposal of using existing overhead wires to implement 2 Clement trolley service on the entire Sutter/Post Street corridor, adding service on the Sutter Street route segment, and realigning the 2 line to operate on California Street to Eighth Avenue, on Eighth Avenue south to Clement Street, on Clement Street between Eighth and Sixth Avenues, and to California via Sixth Avenue.  Service will be discontinued on Clement Street; between Arguello Boulevard and 6th Avenue, and 8th and 15th Avenues.

3 Jackson: The PAG supports maintaining service on the 3 Jackson with reduced frequency to better match customer demand.

6 Parnassus: The PAG supported maintaining the 6 Parnassus in the line’s current alignment through Ashbury Heights to UCSF and Golden Gate Heights and to reduce the frequency of the line to better match customer demand west of Masonic Avenue.  Service will be further increased on the 71L Haight/Noriega Limited.

8X Bayshore Express: The PAG supports the continuation of 8X service north of Broadway for every other trip.

10 Townsend: The PAG supports the current 10 Townsend (Sansome) proposal to reroute through Mission Bay.

17 Parkmerced: The PAG supports the revised 17 realignment proposal, which shifts service to portions of Lake Merced Boulevard and Brotherhood Way to access the Daly City BART Station.

22 Fillmore and 33 Stanyan: The PAG supports the original realignment proposals for these routes, which include realigning the 22 along 16th Street to provide a direct transit connection to Mission Bay and realigning the 33 Stanyan off of Potrero Avenue and along the former 22 Fillmore alignment into the Dogpatch neighborhood. The PAG also supports increasing 33 service from 15 minute service to 12 minute service all day.

27 Bryant: The PAG supports maintaining the entirety of the existing 27 alignment.

28/28L 19th Avenue: The PAG supports the revised proposal for the 28 and 28L, which calls for the termination of the 28L in the Richmond District to Park Presidio and California Street and extension to the Balboa Park BART Station and the Mission corridor, as well as the continuation of the 28 to the Marina District via the Golden Gate Bridge to a new terminal at Van Ness Avenue and North Point Street.

35 Eureka: The PAG supports the revised proposal for the 35, which includes the continuation of service on Moffitt, Farnum, Addison, and Bemis Streets, and the extension of service to the Glen Park BART Station via Miguel and Chenery Streets.

36 Teresita: The PAG supports maintaining the entirety of the existing 36 alignment.

43 Masonic: The PAG supports connecting the route with the Presidio Transit Center while maintaining the existing route segment on Letterman Drive and Lombard Street.

47 Van Ness: The PAG supports maintaining 47 line service on 11th Street between Mission and Bryant Streets, rather than on 13th Street as originally proposed.

48 Quintara/24th Street: The PAG supports the original 48 service change proposal to remove service in the vicinity of Hoffman and Grandview Streets and instead straighten service along Clipper and Douglass Streets. However, the PAG supports maintaining the 48’s current alignment until the new 58 24th Street route is introduced, which is proposed to serve the former 48 alignment along Douglass Street, 21st Street, and Grandview Avenue.

56 Rutland: The PAG supports maintaining the entirety of the existing 56 alignment.

  • murphstahoe

    Leave the 48 as is and make the 58 run down Chavez as an express to Caltrain/Dogpatch

  • Fran Taylor

    Agree but not as an express. Let the folks who live along Cesar Chavez in the Mission and Bernal Heights also enjoy the benefits of transit through the hairball and to points east.

  • jonobate

    The 47 re-route is actually a good compromise. It seemed strange to bypass the 11th St commercial area in order to run under the freeway, where there are few destinations and the environment is pedestrian unfriendly. But after 11th St ends it makes sense to use a more direct route to Caltrain and serve Showplace Square.

    If the freeway is ever removed (here’s hoping!) it would make sense to revisit this decision. There’s enough space on Division and Townsend for all of the 47 to run as center lane BRT using this route, and good transit would help revitalize the corridor.

  • murphstahoe

    Yes, sorry for the word choice. The 48 really bogs down from Dolores to Potrero, and there is no decent link from Bernal to the 3rd Street area.

  • Sprague

    These proposed changes seem reasonable. Glad to see momentum to move the TEP forward.

  • Mario Tanev

    Well, there is the 24 Divisadero. But, I agree with your point.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    The 48/58 thing is simply bat shit insane.

    The 48 today from anywhere to Dogpath/Caltrain is simply unusable because of congestion on 24th (particularly the Valencia-Capp blocks, where removing a dozen parking spots would do wonders for the 48 and 12/67 (and probably the 14, given the amount of turn-blocking congestion) and because of the insanely slow detours into the projects in lower Potrero.

    Both of these “features” are retained in the brilliant MTA plan. As far as I can see it is “we want to short turn the 19 before Hunters Point. What other random bus route is somewhere near the new terminal that we can reroute and say we didn’t cut off service the the south-east of the city? Oh yeah, the 48. Sure, whatever. Make it so.”

    The existing 48 is utterly and completely useless as a “connection” to
    Caltrain 22nd, and the 58 — running less frequently, and sure to be one
    of the first routes to be bagged due to chronic Muni no-show missed
    runs — will be far worse. What is the point of even
    pretending to run this worthless pretend route? Just axe it, as this is all really just about not being perceived as axing the outer 19.

    The 22 is worse than bat shit insane. It takes a bus from a route where it actually serves real people in a real neighbourhood (18th Street on Potrero Hill) and diverts it to the Potemkin Village of Mission Bay.

    While doing so, it re-routes a frequent trolley bus line at grade across an active commuter railroad line. As a double-plus bonus, this will greatly complicate and add to the expense of Caltrain electrification. So a double win: buses blocked by trains for a significant percentage of every hour during peaks (do the math: 10+ trains per hour, about 50 seconds of blockage per train, mostly opposite direction trains don’t overlap); dewirement-prone trolley buses creeping back and forth in front of trains; and guaranteed costly and unreliable and globally unique future hardware for low-voltage trolley crossing high-voltage railway electrification. (Hint: as far as I am aware, there is or was exactly one other trolley bus/25kv rail crossing in the world. Smart people don’t do such stupid things.)

    It’s almost like the plan was hatched by Muni Capital Projects to give the overhead division and the overhead division’s contractors a nice little slush pile of construction pork, while adding many millions of dollars to the future Caltrain electrification project — again accruing to the bottom-feeder consultants.

    All while making the service serve fewer people and be subject to more delays!

    It’s a win-win-win synergy, brought to you by America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals.


  • jonobate

    The 22 is not going to cross Caltrain at grade. Look at the map of the near-term routing:

    Eventually the 22 will go to Mission Bay, after the crossing is grade separated and the overhead wire conflicts you speak of are no longer an issue. Of course you already know this, you’re just being deliberately obtuse.

  • hp2ena

    Yeah, the rerouting of the 19 struck me as odd. There are riders who rely on it as an alternative to the T when there are delays. Removing the 19 as an alternative just diminishes the quality of taking transit direct to Downtown, as they would be required to transfer to do so. Compare this with the Sunset (specifically Irving Street area) with similar density conditions, and they have the N and 71 to go Downtown.

  • sebra leaves

    So, how are people supposed to get to General Hospital and how are people supposed travel north up Van Ness from the Mission? It appears that most of the regular transit route are removed or will require extra transfers, adding 20 to 30 minutes to most human schedules. The buses may move faster, but the people will not.

  • David D.

    Take a deep breath. In. Out. In. Out. Okay now?

    What is so bad about the 48/58 proposal? The point of the change is to increase the level of service along 24th Street. So who is to say that there would be less service to Caltrain? The TEP website certainly doesn’t say so. It just says there will be a modification in frequency.

    So does that mean every 15 minutes instead of every 12 during rush hour? Have you been on the bus out there? To say ridership is high enough to warrant 12-minute headways is a stretch. Besides, the 58 is a pretty short route, so it’ll probably be pretty reliable.

    Honestly, I’m surprised the proposal doesn’t have the 48 going to Caltrain and the 58 going to Hunters Point to keep the two lines of relatively equal length. Maybe you can channel your anger into that request? Then you can have your 48 to Caltrain and it’ll be like nothing ever happened for you…

    P.S. I am not sure what problem you have with the 22 proposal. The 33 will be rerouted to replace the 22 in Potrero Hill. Is your issue the frequency difference? I used to live at Pennsylvania & 20th and took the 22 all the time, and the route was very lightly utilized southeast of 17th & Connecticut.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    What is so bad about the 48/58 proposal?

    For starters, it only makes things worse, without solving the glaringly obvious problems with the 48. Open your eyes.

    “Solutions” in search of problems.

    FYI I’m never going to take “your 48” to anywhere, including Caltrain, unless I end up severely physically incapacitated again. Who has time for the horror of Muni? It’s slower than cycling, slower than driving, and often slower than walking, pre and post TEP.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    The 22 is not going to cross Caltrain at grade

    You’re right and I’m wrong. Sorry.

    I was going on the crazy 16th-to-Mission Bay 22 reroute proposal that has consistently been on the table for the last 15+ years, starting as a Willie Brown gift to his very very special friends at Catellus, Inc.

    BTW I imagine the 55 will be a ghost line unless UCSF is somehow strong-armed into killing its useful-to-humans-but-not-Muni-employees shuttles.

  • Jamison Wieser

    For those who haven’t seen or heard about this, both 16th and Mission Bay drive are going to be closed off and 16th will be rebuilt as an underpass with 7th meeting it at a sunken intersection.

    No problems with clearance, but I’m not looking forward to cycling throw a blind, sunken intersection.