Toward a Faster Muni: Detailed TEP Improvement Proposals Now Available

Photo: ##

Detailed plans for proposed improvements on eight Muni routes are now available for viewing on the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) website. Head over for a block-by-block breakdown of proposed street changes like transit-only lanes, sidewalk extensions, boarding islands, relocated or consolidated stops, replacing stop signs with traffic signals or traffic-calming measures, and more to help keep Muni vehicles moving quickly and reliably.

To help ensure the SFMTA implements the most effective improvements as quickly as possible, it’s crucial for supporters to attend one of the five remaining TEP workshops and weigh in on the eight priority routes: the 28-19th Avenue, the N-Judah, the 30-Stockton, the 8x-Bayshore Express, the J-Church, the 14-Mission, the 5-Fulton, and the 22-Fillmore.

A recent workshop on the 14 and 22 lines in the Mission was derailed by a small but vocal group who dominated the discussion with unrelated complaints, according to reports from some who attended. To help provide a more balanced and constructive conversation at future workshops, riders eager to see more reliable Muni service on these corridors must be well represented.

The SFMTA will hold two more workshops this week. Tomorrow, the 28-19th Avenue‘s second workshop will take place at Lakeside Presbyterian Church (201 Eucalyptus Drive at 19th Ave.) at 6 p.m. The proposals for the route include extending sidewalks to ease boardings and shorten pedestrian crossings at over 20 intersections along 19th Avenue as well as removing excessive stops at seven intersections.

On Saturday, a workshop on the 5-Fulton, and 22-Fillmore routes will be held at 10 a.m. at the Ella Hill Hutch Community Center (1050 McAllister Street at Webster).

Proposals for the 5-Fulton include extending sidewalks at 11 intersections, moving stops across 11 intersections, removing stops at nine intersections, replacing stop signs with traffic signals or traffic-calming measures at nine intersections, a road diet on Fulton Street between Stanyan and Central Streets, and more.

For the 22-Fillmore, proposals include “median bus lanes” between Bryant and Third Streets, seven boarding islands and roughly two dozen sidewalk extensions along 16th Street, and restricting left turns at most intersections along 16th.

SFMTA staff said it is also working on maps and renderings to help the public visualize the proposed plans. The final workshop on May 5 will include a review of proposals for all eight routes.

See the entire schedule of workshops on the TEP website, and also be sure to weigh in on an online poll.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    Wow.  Great to see they’re creating transit lanes on Stockton, banning right turns from Third to Market, and not proposing to have the electrified 22 cross the electrified Caltrain line at a grade crossing!

    Oh, hang on…

  • Anonymous

    who ruined the 14/22 discussion? Was it OccupySF or POWER?

  • Carol

    judging by the trolly comments, it was probably @f84b22d3acf35e1589e626b8e51fe1a4:disqus who ruined the 14/ 22 discussion. 

  • Gneiss

    I fail to see how moving the bike lane on 16th would do anything to increase travel times for the 22.  However, making a left turn from 16th toward 17th at 7th would be brutal, given that is also where the Caltrain tracks cross, at it’s a very weird intersection to begin with.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    Willie Brown promised Catellus the 22 down 16th.  End of story.  Sorry, little people, suck it down.

  • Peter M

     I see they’re proposing to remove the J stop at Liberty Street, isn’t that stop the reason they can’t use two-car trains on the J?

  • Anonymous

    It’s one of two reasons, the other being the 21st St. stop. Apparently, two cars trains are not being considered at this time. So close, and yet so far…

  • Mario Tanev

    I don’t understand those who clamor for 2-car J trains. The J trains are already too infrequent and Muni is short on operational LRVs. 2-car J trains will mean lower frequency.

  • Anonymous

    I ha to let three one-car trains go past at Civic Center today because they were too full to get on. That’s what the clamor for two car trains is about. Admittedly the J is the lowest priority (after K/T, L, M) but it still would be useful. Making all trains two-car is the easiest way to improve capacity on the metro- you can’t add trains as the subway already backs up during peak hours, but you can have those trains carry more people.

  • Hello Gneiss.  The bike lane would be need to be moved to 17th Street if the proposed median bus lanes and boarding islands are to be built.  The roadway is not wide enough to have bike lanes, bus lanes, boarding islands, one general traffic lane in both directions, and one parking lane / sidewalk bulb-out.  We’ll be having another workshop on the 22 Fillmore (and the 5 Fulton) proposals this Saturday if you’d like to meet with staff and learn more.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    The biggest problem with the J, as with most of Muni, is line management.
    That and running almost completely empty trains past 24th.

    Back in the good old bad old days, every second peak train was turned at 30th.
    Given any sort of line management, that would provide acceptable headways and appropriate capacity along San Jose, but, well, this is Muni we’re talking about, so they just run completely empty trains all the way, burning cash and resources in a bonfire of managerial incompetence, rather than making any effort to intelligently allocate limited resources.

    An even more obvious fix would be to turn J trains back at 24th, which, even more than 30th, is where ridership falls off a cliff.  Except there’s no crossover for reversing there, because Muni’s brilliant planners rebuilt the useless 22nd-23rd xover in place at great expense a decade ago instead of moving it south of 24th where it would be useful.

    Of course J ridership has cratered in the last decade, thanks for Muni’s operational skill.  The hordes of people walking (because the Muni 48 doesn’t exist) form 24th/Church to and from 24th/Mission to BART are literally voting with their feet.  Removing the Liberty Street stop isn’t going to put the slightest dent in that.

  • Gneiss

    Nice work, MuniRapid. A complete street treatment, but without accommodations for bicycles.  If it’s so important to get the bus lanes and boarding islands in, why not remove parking instead of the bike lane?  As I said before, the left turn at 7th is going to be brutal for cyclists, particularly if it’s made so you need to mix it up with cars to get over there.  Not for the 8 to 80 crowd for sure.

  • Do you have ridership stats? My experience does not dovetail with yours regarding the 30th to 24th segment. And the ridership there is lower than it should be because once you combine the unpredictable headways with the slow run time, the people at 28th are voting with their feet just like people at 24th/Church, but they don’t have a BART alternative. I certainly choose the first of J/24 when boarding at 30th/Church, by the time all is said and done I probably get to Powell just as fast taking the 24 to Castro.

  • @002ec2dcc5273303fbfd34e45385ab64:disqus , the proposals for 16th Street came about from the Eastern Neighborhoods  Transportation Implementation Planning Study (EN TRIPS –  This study involved several years of analysis and community involvement within the Potrero Hill, Showplace Square, Mission, SOMA, and Central Waterfront communities.  Out of this study was a “preferred alternative” for 16th Street ( pages 4-17 to 4-30 with graphics on page 4-24) that called for the bike lane being moved to 17th Street.  While parking could be kept, the preferred alternative would remove parking and widen the sidewalks.
    From a transit travel time improvement perspective for the 22 Fillmore, having parking, bike lanes, or a wider sidewalk would not affect transit since the buses would be in the center lane. We will definitely record your concern over the bike lane being moved, however.  Also, please reach out to the EN TRIPS project team to voice your concern (contacts at the bottom of this page:


  • Anonymous

    Ridership stats:

    Interestingly, the 24th – 30th st section has significantly more ridership going northbound than southbound.

    In a sane world, the J would terminate at 30th/Mission BART station. There is no point running in the middle of a freeway like arterial and paralleling the faster and more reliable BART line. South of 30th it’s probably faster to take BART + walk/bus to get to your destination, and the ridership shows it.


What’s Next for the TEP?

Can the TEP transform Muni, dramatically improving its reliability and on-time performance? Bashing Muni, an agency that has been historically underfunded, is a San Francisco pastime. Riders are used to break downs, delays and general unreliability. Could all that be about to change? After an arduous process of gathering ridership data, community input, and considering […]

Mayor Lee Must Make SFMTA Act Quickly on TEP Implementation

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, in an interview with Streetsblog this week, pledged to make the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) implementation his number one Muni priority. That’ll be no easy task, however. More than three years after the SFMTA Board unanimously approved a plan to give Muni its first major revamp in 20 years, the […]