Comments on: SFTEP: Proposed Route Changes

By: SF Transit Effectiveness Project: Fall 2008 Route Revisions « Transbay Blog

SF Transit Effectiveness Project: Fall 2008 Route Revisions « Transbay Blog — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:09:49 +0000

[...] proposals of Muni reroutes for the Transit Effectiveness Project. TEP staff have modified the initial TEP proposals offered this past February, taking into account the commentary offered by members of public at a [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 04:32:58 +0000

Hi Zig, Also is Muni working on better service to the 22nd street Caltrain stop? There is some discussion of service changes in this area in the comments to the Caltrain electrification post. I'm going to close this thread off to comments, because it now discusses an out-of-date set of recommendations. But I plan to write a new post soon, hopefully early next week, on the latest set of TEP updates, so we can start up another discussion thread on that new post.

By: Zig

Zig — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:14:28 +0000

Also is Muni working on better service to the 22nd street Caltrain stop?

This seems to be a no brainer in the peak periods

By: Zig

Zig — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:13:36 +0000

I hope there is more to come, my goodness it is a step in the right direction but very underwhelming and disappointing to be honest

As a J rider it appears my service will be degraded further as they now have more change to be clustered all the way out to SFSU

Is there any future chance of stop eliminations? Also within the area I am aware we stop at a stop signs on Church Street and a lights at 16th, 17th, 18th and Market. Then about tens minutes to cross Market and line up with the tunnel. Its just really bad service.

I also had terrible experiences on the N. How does more frequent service help when they bunch daily? I no longer take this to the ballpark as it can take literally an hour to get from Noe Valley to the park. They should really consider a bus loop for the special events at the park for the overflow as the service and infrastructure are just not up to the loads

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:30:03 +0000

I am listening, but I also don’t work for the MTA, so hopefully they’re listening! I’ve forwarded comments here to them. The 6-Parnassus changes have already been the subject of quite a bit of controversy, and the MTA is already taking a hard look at its proposals, in light of public commentary.

By: Jason Lee

Jason Lee — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:24:08 +0000

Another thing I forgot to add about the 6 line is that you will certainly tick off the neighborhood with the overhead wiring from 14th Avenue all the way down to West Portal. It would mess up their unsightly view in the area. Also for many cars coming out of the driveway would not be able to see the bus is coming or going because of the hill. Thanks for listening if you are listening.

By: Jason Lee

Jason Lee — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:52:40 +0000

The 6 line should not be extended to West Portal because you have the 48 line just 2 blocks away on 14th Avenue that goes to West Portal. Why waste the taxpayer monies for the extention. It makes no sense to have 2 lines goes to West Portal. Also I have talked to many 6 operators that they do not want to go to West Portal due to already a congested area.

By: theo

theo — Tue, 27 May 2008 20:29:41 +0000

There’s going to be neighborhood opposition to the 6 changes, some of it drummed up by the Ashbury Market folks who want to keep their current bus line intersection (good for business).

But really, rerouting the 6 Parnassus to Haight St. would greatly increase the frequency and reliability of service on Haight, which is something that everyone in the neighborhood needs.

In the worst case, Cole Valley residents will have to walk two extra blocks. Many will have to walk only one block.

If you’re too old or disabled to walk two blocks on a not very steep hill, you should really think about taking advantage of paratransit services. They’re designed for you.

p.s. the 6 is the closest line to my apartment, but i wouldn’t mind a small sacrifice to improve transit overall

By: craig anderson

craig anderson — Mon, 26 May 2008 21:15:01 +0000

–They give voice service to the great “non-polluting electric busses” and then eliminate 4 entire elec. bus routes and propose diesels on half of the heaviest electric routes (the 5 and 14).
–The chief ranger at GGNRA pleads for more service to the Ft. Mason piers, so MUNI eliminates the one line that goes there.
–MUNI touts the success of its visitor’s “pass-ports” but eliminates any service to our #1 icon, the Golden Gate Bridge.
–makes the only cross-market bus (#19) between Van Ness and Fifth a “circular” and in the process makes Hyde St two-way, removes the library stop to over two blocks away (not the first time this has been tried). Making Hyde and 8th St. two-way is lunacy.
–eliminates 25% of service, particularly the community lines. This is probably illegal (they are a utility; would PG&E, AT&T, or the water department be allowed to ‘eliminate’ service to all but the “most profitable” uses.
–totally ignores the bigest integration with regional transit (supposidly 25% of MUNI riders according to MUNI figures) with the introduction of ‘trans-link” coming this fall.

The list continues, but makes one wonder if the planners, already known to NOT live in SF, or ride MUNI, know how SF is laid out.

By: Valentina

Valentina — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:44:36 +0000

I am opposed to the changes on the 6 line. That route is necessary to serve the hilly areas of Ashbury Heights and should not be re-routed to duplicate the N Judah, or onto Haight where there are already plenty of busses. Neighborhood people, old and disabled people as well as employees and students of UCSF need this line.