My point is, Eric, that what we have now will simply not support increased capacity. Fiddling with the routes won’t even address the underlying problems of unreliable operators and vehicles. The discussion may be skewed towards fiddling with the routes, but simply restoring service levels would solve most of the problems. Routes like the 14 and the 30 are, of course, excepted.

The Phantoms don’t see regular service, do they? I’ve only ever seen them running J replacement service or driver training stuff out by Lake Merced. The rest of the diesel fleet doesn’t seem to be that bad. Sure I’ve seen broken down diesels, but I can’t remember the last time I’ve ever been on one.

Thing is tho, the trains are mid-life, but they’ve been terrible from the start… and the powers that be want to avoid spending more money on maintenance. I was putting gasoline into my car this morning when I heard a really annoying alarm. After a minute or so, I looked up to see what it was… yet another Breda with malfunctioning doors.

I had started to track dwell times and my commute time a while ago. It’s not unusual to see a train stuck at a stop or a station for a few minutes. In terms up uptime (and its effect on punctuality) you’re not looking at how many nines you can shove into 99%, no you’re looking at something absurd like 70% or 80%. Press them into *more* service, and watch them break faster. Or, watch MUNI increase the rate of early turnbacks and claim success (this is what I’m really worried about).

Speed in the Twin Peaks tunnel is not an issue *at all*. They regularly hit 50+ MPH, and are far from capacity from what I can tell. The problem is that it takes 5-10 minutes to get a train through West Portal. Aside from WP, the majority of the problems I’ve experienced have been between Castro and the MMT. In short, capacity is limited by the atrocious switchgear and barely functional trains.

As it stands the Market tunnel can NOT support tighter headways. No way no how.

I don’t think the AM service is too bad. Could be ballpark, I think it’s the K/T. Early turnbacks have been a lot more common with the introduction of the T. Last night was fun. Two car outbound L to West Portal (turns into a two car M), waited for the two car M following that to pass. Two car L arrived, got stuck behind a one car M doing a turnback, and was thusly followed immediately by a one car OB L from Balboa Park. Yeah. I sauntered down to Safeway ahead of either of the supposed L’s.

Reorganizing the lines is just a slight of hand. Without the vehicles or staff to support increased service, nothing will be gained.

Is the recent decrease in two-car L-Taraval service only during the PM peak? It’s likely cars are being pulled to provide ball park service on game days.

The current MUNI fleet consists of third-world transit technology implemented by people who seemingly have no regard for the riders and drivers who have to use and operate them daily. High-floor diesel buses, ex-AC Transit Gillig buses that struggle to get up SF’s steep hills, Breda streetcars that have a “Out of Service” warning light built in above the doors, new Orion hybrids where hooligans can shut the bus off with a flip of a switch *from the outside*. . .

Let’s focus on getting some rapid transit vehicles that are aesthetically pleasing to the eye and can move people quickly and efficiently across town. Low-floor buses with lots of wide doors, well-thought out seating configurations that allow movement within the bus during crush loads are a start. The Orion Hybrids were a step in that direction, but the design of those vehicles combined with MUNI’s disgustingly hideous paint scheme rubs me the wrong way.

Hey, if LA can do it, why can’t we?

Even freeing up more trains through efficiency, there’s still only so many revenue service hours we can get from the current 147 car fleet and the TEP has pointed out we’d need to acquire more.

Additionally their proposed changes to the 28 are a crock. Turn the Richmond district portion into a limited service area? So what?! Service in the Richmond isn’t the problem! Extend the 28L into Vis Valley? Are you freaking kidding me? The one saving grace of the 28 as it stands is that the 28 is (somewhat) more reliable than the 29. The absurdly long routes (like the 29!) are unreliable in large part because of their length.

The worst part of their proposed changes is that nobody has even mentioned repurposing the artics for the 28. There is simply not enough capacity on the 28 as-is. That is the primary problem! Crush loaded buses south of Judah are the norm in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening, and during the weekends. Are you seeing a pattern here? Of course, the forty-five minute headways aren’t helping things either.

While there is substance to the TEP’s report, all we’re going to get out of it are service cuts (or restoration to 2007-level service). Mark my words.

Reorganization of the routes is not a bad idea, per-se, some of the suggestions in the TEP report are reasonable even. However, MUNI, the MTA, and the Gav have proven that common sense and logic won’t prevail. Look at the subway to nowhere. Look at the elimination of service to CCSF (oh, I meant the K-Ingleside… the T-Third Street? The Katie-Third slash Ingleside? The 10? 20? Ugh). Look at Natty Tatty Ford’s response to criticism of the subway to nowhere. Community meetings or not, nothing good will come out of this.