Comments on: SFTEP Moves Forward to Environmental Assessment

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:49:13 +0000

Ah, yes the official plan pretending”a few low ridership” adjustments will somehow magicly transform perrenial understaffing/overtime excess will turn into express buses on the trunks and on=time service everywhere else. May I sell anyone a bridge? How many months of papershuffling effort has it taken to achieve this disaster?
Nowhere in TEP is there ironclad commitment to signal preemots, gutting four way stop signs on transit arterials, or serious changes to the MOU . As long as drivers can stop to pick up junk food in mid run, skip route segments to make up time, Muni will continue to suck.
As to specifics, the wires will probably come down on Jackson unless BOS wakes up. Shifting the 54 to skip Balboa Park where the bulk of riders board/alight on 6the fantasy that some day the BART station will be reconfigured just screws riders until that prohect is done.
Apologies if I sound bitter, but I truly believe TEP is a bad deal all around.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:01:35 +0000

would they rip down the overhead for the 3 jackson? or just mothball it?

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:27:00 +0000

Josh: I agree we need more capital investment, ideally, far more than that prescribed here. But TEP is essentially a more short-term five-year plan that sets important basic issues in place that have been lacking, a necessary foundation. Just because we don’t have the necessary funds now for capital improvements doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make more efficient use of current resources. In fact, it’s an argument that that is basically what we should be doing.

EN rezoning discussion has not been thoroughly integrated with transit discussion to date, though it needs to be and it will (this is another topic I’ve been meaning to get to, hopefully post-election). The Ad Hoc Committee specifically requested coordination between EN and SFMTA with respect to improvements on Folsom. But I do appreciate your point: it’s an important discussion to have.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:07:27 +0000

As a point of environmental justice, I think it’s super lame that all but one of the eliminated lines are in the “eastern neighborhoods.” Not laying blame on anyone in particular, but the bias stand out in the end result.

It also seems short-sighted to do this huge reevaluation without comprehensive consideration of all the changes that we can be sure will happen under the Eastern Neighborhood rezoning.

And I wish we didn’t have to operate under this foolish zero-sum premise. There may be waste in Muni but if you want real improvement in the system you have to REALLY invest in the system. Capital improvements that I’m glad you mentioned are at least being considered.

That said, I look forward to service improving on the core lines. :-/