Comments on: Proposed Change to the Inbound 71L http://transbayblog.com/2008/03/27/proposed-change-to-the-inbound-71l/ Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:20:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: kfarr http://transbayblog.com/2008/03/27/proposed-change-to-the-inbound-71l/#comment-5053 kfarr Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:28:23 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/?p=357#comment-5053 This seems like a 'duh' and surely any Muni driver would be able to tell Muni management, "Hey, it's ridiculously congested let's choose another route." I understand the theory of having the public weigh in on route changes, but route changes due to congestion avoidance should not require public hearings. Another great reroute 'duh' is the 27-Bryant toward Jackson & Van Ness. When it's heading east on Bryant between 6th and 5th Streets, the afternoon/evening Bay Bridge on-ramp backup makes this block take nearly 10 minutes. Would it be so bad if it snaked down 6th to Folsom, then to 5th? Or whatever 4 equivalent routes could be created? I guess we need a public hearing first. This seems like a ‘duh’ and surely any Muni driver would be able to tell Muni management, “Hey, it’s ridiculously congested let’s choose another route.”

I understand the theory of having the public weigh in on route changes, but route changes due to congestion avoidance should not require public hearings.

Another great reroute ‘duh’ is the 27-Bryant toward Jackson & Van Ness. When it’s heading east on Bryant between 6th and 5th Streets, the afternoon/evening Bay Bridge on-ramp backup makes this block take nearly 10 minutes.

Would it be so bad if it snaked down 6th to Folsom, then to 5th? Or whatever 4 equivalent routes could be created? I guess we need a public hearing first.

]]>