Today’s Headlines

  • Page Street to Receive New Bike Lanes, First Public Hearing Takes Place Nov. 13 (SF Bike)
  • Powell St. BART Station Improvements to Include New Ceiling, Lighting and Stairway (SF Chron)
  • Parking at Transit-Rich SoMa Development 5M Reduced by 132 Spaces (Hoodline, SF Chron, SF Exam)
  • Speeding and Poor Road Design Cause of Three Recent SF Car Crashes Injuring Peds (SF Exam)
  • Mountain View to Review Option for Caltrain Road Crossing Through Downtown by Mid-2016 (GC)
  • Bay Area Metering Lights Could be Extended for Mornings and Afternoons (Merc News)
  • Palo Alto City Council Requests Hybrid Version of Midtown Bike Project (Palo Alto Online)
  • BART Parking Fees to Rise in Four Stations for Six Months Beginning December 17th (TDJ, SF Bay)
  • Walnut Creek Driver Runs Through Red Light and Strikes and Kills 56-Year-Old Woman (SF Gate)
  • Concord Driver Strikes Two-Year-Old While Backing Out of Parking Spot (CBS)
  • 300 San Jose Taxi Drivers on Strike at Airport, Want Same Regulations for Ride-Hailing Drivers (CBS)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Prinzrob

    Even more on the proposed AC Transit transbay service cuts in N Oakland and Emeryville: http://www.dailycal.org/2015/11/09/ac-transit-to-discuss-changes-to-f-line-other-routes-at-wednesday-board-meeting/

  • jonobate

    Is this really a cut? The F is the AC Transit route I use the most often, and I’ve often bemoaned the fact that it loops around the south of Emeryville rather than heading directly to Ashby and Downtown Berkeley. The new route is more direct, and the former service area is covered by the J. This combined with the increase to 20 min headway leads me to think that this is a positive change.

    I’m not impressed with the new route numbering for the other lines, though. Not every line needs a letter in front of it! Save the letters for the Transbay and Rapid routes, and keep the regular buses with numbers only.

  • CamBam415
  • Prinzrob

    If the new J Line was 24/7 and not just during weekday commute hours as proposed, if it ran to Downtown Berkeley and not just N Berkeley BART as proposed, and if it still served the 40th Street transit hub instead of taking a shortcut via W MacArthur as proposed then it indeed would not be a service cut. New transbay bus service on the Alcatraz corridor via the proposed F Line route is great, but not at the expense of existing service on the Market/40th corridor.

  • Andy Chow

    You got to look at the totality of things. In the area, AC Transit also proposes to boost frequency of line 88, which also serves downtown Berkeley, and extend line 57 to Emeryville. Peak Transbay service will still be available along the 88 route in the area. There’s really no major impact for local travel. Lines 57 and 88 will connect with the realigned F along with BART.

  • Andy Chow

    I think the route numbers are there for planning and discussion purposes. Once it is approved an actual number would be assigned.

  • Prinzrob

    What you are describing is still a cut in service, and one that involves more time and complexity (and expense for riders who pay in cash) for Longfellow/Santa Fe neighbors compared to the existing service.

    Right now I can go 2 blocks and hop on the F Line at Market Street to take a bus straight into SF 24/7. Three different BART stations are a mile from where I live, which doesn’t seem far but can be for someone who doesn’t/can’t drive and has limited mobility.

    With the proposed change I can take the new J line into SF during commute hours on weekdays only, but the rest of the time I will have to take either (between 6am-10pm) the 88 then transfer over to the NL at W Grand/Market (not the safest place to wait for a bus) or (between 10pm-6am) walk over a half mile late at night to Telegraph to catch the 800 all-nighter bus (not the safest option either, and much less direct than the existing F Line). All of these options will involve more time and complexity than the existing service for me and other Longfellow/Santa Fe neighbors. As far as I know no increase in all-nighter service is being proposed to make up for it being cut from the transbay lines which are now proposed to stop running at midnight.

    I also wonder if AC Transit has taken into account the extra waiting time and uncertainty related to the new F Line’s crossing the train tracks at surface level on 65th Street as opposed to going over them via the 40th Street bridge. Regular backups occur at the 65th Street location, and while solo drivers can opt for the Powell Street overpass instead a bus driver won’t be able to use that alternative when long freight trains are going through.

  • jonobate

    I hope so. It would be nice if bus route numbers were co-ordinated throughout the region. One way to do it would be to assign a block of 100 numbers to each bus agency, e.g Muni gets 0-99, AC Transit gets 100-199, VTA 200-299, SamTrans 300-399 etc.

    Under such a scheme, Transbay bus routes should probably be given numbers, with letters reserved for Muni and VTA light rail routes. Use of Rapid ‘R’ and Express ‘X’ suffixes should also be standardized.

  • Andy Chow

    A little tough considering that other regions with multiple bus agencies (like Los Angeles, Seattle, etc) have duplicating route numbers, but in Seattle they do reserve sets of number for regional routes so there’s no duplication at where services intersect.

    I prefer a route numbering system that has structure and can provide some clues to what kind of service it is as well as relationship with other routes. Cities that have a grid system often have one set of number for north-south and another for east-west. SamTrans numbering scheme is more detailed with area served and rail connections. Line 110 for example operates in Daly City area and connects to BART (1xx route), and like 280 operates in East Palo Alto and connects to Caltrain (2xx route)

    However some agencies have a messy numbering scheme, like the one in San Diego. A community for example would have a two digit route and a 9xx route that provide similar service.

    AC Transit numbering system is somewhere in between. But with older system, some of the routes have been using the same number for 3 to 4 decades largely unchanged, such as 40, 51, 54, 57, 88, F, and O. So considering the legacy I am not sure whether it is a good idea to renumbering all the routes to something like 101, 102, 103, which is rather cold.

    Under the plan, line 1 would be split into 3 segments. The northern part, I think, can keep the 1, the central segment can use number 80, which was the route number used before line 1 along International. The southern portion can use 81, which was used along the same corridor in earlier days.