Today’s Headlines

  • Coverage of the Muni Transit Effectiveness Project in SFGate, SFBay
  • SF Chronicle Hates the Idea of Raising the F-Line Fare
  • SFMTA Survey Finds Muni Riders Dissatisfied With Cleanliness, Reliability (SF Weekly)
  • Stockton Tunnel Closed by Water Main Break, Re-Routing Muni 30 and 45 (SF Appeal)
  • Coverage of the Castro Street Redesign Groundbreaking and Rainbow Crosswalks (ABC, CBS)
  • Parklet to Open at Octavia and Page Next Week (Hayeswire)
  • Local Transpo Planner’s Time Lapse Video of a Tech Bus Stop Hits the Washington Post
  • Caltrain Hits Unoccupied SUV on Tracks at 16th Street Crossing (NBC)
  • BART to Release App That Allows Riders to Report Crimes Discreetly (CBS)
  • Golden Gate Transit Gets State Grant for Onboard Security Cameras (Marin IJ)
  • SMART to Halt Construction After Protests to Save Rare Redwood Tree (Press Democrat)
  • Caltrain’s Efforts to Replace Train Bridges Lead to Disputes Over Neighbors’ Property (SM Daily Journal)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • jonobate

    The TEP originally proposed a 13% service increase balanced by 3% service reduction provided through route changes and frequency reductions. As a result of the outreach and the subsequent reversal of route changes to the 3, 6, 8X, 12, 17, 27, 28/28L, and 35, most of those cuts have been reversed, and the net increase in service has now changed from 10% to 12%.

    In general and in abstract, everyone is in favor of more service everywhere, but it’s always struck me as inefficient that Muni provides parallel service on closely spaced corridors (e.g. Bryant & Potrero) when combining service on one high frequency corridor would be far more effective. One complaint was that the 27 couldn’t be eliminated because the 9/9L is crowded – well, if you combined the resources together on one corridor, maybe it wouldn’t be so crowded! The TEP was supposed to fix this problem, and now it’s not going to.

    My concern is that the extra 2% of service will not be implemented soon or at all due to budget constraints, and it will be lost from the high frequency rapid lines in order to prevent route changes to the low frequency local lines. That seems to be what this document suggests (last page):

    Also, this is hilarious: “Extension of service to Vallejo Street will endanger small children.” Probably kittens, too.

  • IHeartPandas

    I think another complaint about eliminating the 27 was that the 9/9L isn’t safe (or as safe as the 27)? I don’t know first-hand, as I don’t ride those routes.

  • Mario Tanev

    But 9/9L carry more people than 27. Doesn’t that then mean that we should try to make the 9/9L safer instead?

  • p_chazz

    If you lived in low income housing in an out of the way corner of Diamond Heights and you were going to lose service on your block you might feel differently. Sometimes we need to sacrifice efficiency in favor of service.

  • @jonobate – I don’t claim to know the entire interconnected grand plan of the TEP, but I fail to see how the proposed alterations to the 6 would do any good. Taking the 6 out of Ashbury Heights and Parnassus Heights is clearly a reduction of service, and it’s hard to see the benefit of instead running it down Haight Street where it would be redundant with existing service (and slowed down by foot traffic, tour buses, Google buses, etc.). If there is genius in this decision, nobody’s made any effort to explain it.

    Of course there are details that are overlooked with phrasing like “an average of 2-3 blocks.” The word “Heights” in the two neighborhoods mentioned might be a bit of a clue. Reallocation of stops away from where people live and walk is another factor. And it does seem that people who actually live in these neighborhoods have greater command of these details, but any such input is derided as “NIMBY,” because name-calling with an acronym is such a cogent way to argue.

  • Sprague

    As an irregular rider of the 6, my casual observation is the bus is fairly empty and not picking up or dropping off many passengers in the section south of Haight/west of Masonic. Meanwhile, the 71 is packed like sardines/standing room only along Haight Street. It seems obvious that far more riders would benefit if the 6 is rerouted along Haight (all the way to Stanyan). Haight Street has high transit ridership and the 71 is too infrequent (and too crowded) to adequately meet the demand. Furthermore, Outer Sunset riders would be well served if the 71 is able to start skipping stops once it enters the Haight (as proposed by the TEP). Taking the 71 from the Sunset to downtown often becomes cumbersome when the bus is slowed along Haight Street due to a crush of passengers. Of course, if there were a 7 Haight line that would help immensely!

  • Jim

    The slowest (also, worst) part of the 71 ride from the Inner Sunset to Downtown is when it runs along Haight. Constant stop and go, long dwell times, and crowding. As Sprague mentions, the 71 is set to become the 71L and make limited stops along Haight. The 6 is being re-routed onto the full length of Haight so “local” service can still be maintained.

    I would much rather have more frequent service and further stop spacing on the 71L than bringing back the 7. I wouldn’t want to add another line to an already crowded and somewhat narrow street, in addition to Market St. Remember when the 66 also use to run from Ferries to the Outer Sunset. If MTA can apply transit priority treatments to Haight and Lincoln, then perhaps we can realistically talk about adding capacity through additional lines.

  • Jim

    That is hilarious. MTA plans to maintain the 20-minute “headway” for the 27. If anything, what is more dangerous to the children are the cars speeding up and down Leavenworth. That street needs to be traffic calmed and made two-way all the way to McAllister.

    The two-way conversion of Hyde and Leavenworth is still part of the Tenderloin traffic study. I wonder why MTA decided to leave that study out of the recent iterations of the TEP plan. The original TEP plan for the 27 was to run two-way on Leavenworth and also on Eddy, rather than the zigzag route it currently maintains.

  • @Jim – I have to admit I’m a little confused about why adding the 6 to Haight is an improvement (despite loss of service to everyone living uphill) but restoring the 7 to Haight would make it worse.