Muni / SFMTA, San Francisco, Transit Effectiveness Project

SF Transit Effectiveness Project: Fall 2008 Route Revisions

Last month, the SFMTA released its revised 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 slew of community meetings held throughout the City this past spring. The next step is to get the SFMTA Board’s approval of the recommendations; the Board will review the recommendations tomorrow, on September 16, 2008. The meeting will be in Room 400 of San Francisco City Hall, and there will be two opportunities for public hearing at the meeting: at 3:30 pm, and again at 5:30 pm. Check out the full details posted on the TEP website for any specific lines you are interested in. Although some lines have not changed at all since the Februrary version, the latest proposals include three new routes: the 11, 32, and 58. The highlights from the revisions are after the jump (note- list is not exhaustive).

  • No major changes to the rail line proposals, but the E-Embarcadero and F-Market & Wharves are acknowledged as components of the high priority “Rapid” network, as befits the current high ridership on the F-line.
  • 2-Clement between Presidio and Arguello has been restored to California Street. The 2-Clement and 4-Sutter combined would provide four-minute headways at peak. 3-Jackson is still an eliminated route, and the 2-Clement service west of 14th Avenue is still eliminated, as in the February proposals.
  • 6-Parnassus will cover the entire length of Haight Street, turning off of Haight onto Stanyan (rather than Cole).
  • 9-San Bruno will operate as short line local service to 24th Street. The 9L-San Bruno Limited will operate as limited service between Market and 24th Street, and then provide local service south of 24th Street.
  • The Februrary proposals suggested eliminating the separate 9AX and 9BX routes, operating instead a single 9X route. The latest revisions restore the 9AX and 9BX, with a few route changes; north of Broadway, the 9BX is replaced with the new 11-Downtown Connector line.
  • New Line: 11-Downtown Connector. The February proposals changed the 19-Polk into a 19-Downtown Circulator that used Polk on its western segment. The latest proposal renames this the 11-Downtown Connector, except that the 11 will not be a loop. The western segment of that loop will be picked up by a newly revised 19-Polk, that will restore the Potrero Hill connection, but will not go as far as the Bayview. The 48-Quintara/24th Street will pick up the missing Bayview section. The new 11 line will run two-way along Folsom as far west as 11th Street, and then connecting to Van Ness Station. (Note: the February 19-Downtown Circular proposal from February only served Folsom as far west as 8th Street.)
  • The 12-Pacific will connect downtown to Potrero Hill via Mission Bay/Caltrain.
  • 14-Mission: two sets of overhead wires so that both local and limited service will be run on trolleybuses.
  • The 18-46th Avenue will no longer be joined to the 23-Monterey, as originally proposed. The 18 will use 33rd Avenue, Balboa, and Cabrillo between Golden Gate Park and the Legion of Honor. The revised 17-Parkmerced will replace service along Skyline Drive and Font Boulevard.
  • The 24-Divisadero will not be rerouted to 24th Street, as one February alternative had proposed.
  • The 26-Valencia is still marked as a route to be eliminated.
  • The new 27-Folsom will run the length of Folsom between 5th Street and Cesar Chavez, though the MTA promises to evaluate Harrison as an option in its TEP environmental review. North of Market, the new 27 would still use proposed two-way service along Leavenworth and Ellis. Similarly, the 31-Balboa may also use proposed two-way service along Eddy, instead of using the Eddy/Turk pair.
  • The 28-19th Avenue (local) will serve the Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza.
  • New Line: 32-Roosevelt. Runs between Church Station and the Upper Haight, picking up a section of the revised 37-Corbett, which will run on Market between Church and Castro Stations.
  • The recommended alternative for the 33-Stanyan will pick up the 22-Fillmore Potrero Hill service, and will remain unchanged west of Potrero Street.
  • The 36-Teresita will use Chenery through Glen Park, instead of the controversial and unworkable Roanoke proposal.
  • The 43-Masonic will serve Presidio Transit Center and Richardson on its way to and from the Fort Mason terminus.
  • The 45-Union/Stockton extension to Mission Bay and Potrero Hill, which was proposed in Februrary, has been scrapped.
  • The revised 47-Van Ness would use 13th, Division, and Townsend to access Caltrain.
  • New Line: 58-24th Street. This line would operate along 24th Street between Potrero and Castro. The 48 and 58 lines combined will reduce headways on this commercial corridor.
  • The 66-Quintara will not be wholly eliminated, but van service will pick up service in Golden Gate Heights.
  • The 76-Marin Headlands will start at Montgomery station (south of Market service eliminated). Proposed 30-minute headways on both Saturdays and Sundays.

If you’d like, feel free to use the comments here as another opportunity to praise and/or criticize the recommendations.

Advertisements

Discussion

4 thoughts on “SF Transit Effectiveness Project: Fall 2008 Route Revisions

  1. I don’t quite understand the rationale behind the new 6 routing. It has the same disadvantage of the Cole route–it doesn’t go up the hill–but without the advantage of serving as a substitute for the N when the subway is hosed.

    Posted by haighterade | 16 September 2008, 10:39 pm
  2. They want to replace the entire 7-Haight with the new 6 Routing, which won’t be in service until 2012, but there isn’t much service there anyway.

    Posted by Whole Wheat Toast | 17 September 2008, 8:39 pm
  3. Overall the TEP has good ideas. I especially like the new E line and the enhanced plan proposals involving the light rail lines.

    However, there needs to be MORE LIMITED BUSES. Muni stops at just about every block. It needs to go faster. Could there be some more line combined to make this possible. Also, on some lines we could perhaps have handicap only stops.

    Do we have to wait for BRT on Van Ness? Why not extend the 49L to make limited Van Ness stops or make a 47L on Van Ness? AND run it more frequently.Another option would be an express Van Ness line that terminates at the Transbay Terminal.

    Combining the 6 and the 7 is great. But could we then get a 6L? It would stop at the Transbay Terminal, the BART stations on Market, Lower Height, Masonic, UCSF and then West Portal Station. It would be AMAZING!

    The LRVs should have reduced stops and better stations (ie platforms) to quicken stops. These can, and should work as the backbone for MUNI. For example. The N should not have any stops between Cole and UCSF, and just one stop on Irving. The same could be said for the M between West Portal and SFSU – this isn’t even a very dense area.

    Limited buses also open up new opportunities for new bus routes that otherwise would not be possible. For example, how come someone living in the Nob Hill/Russian Hill, China Town/North Beach area can’t get to Golden Gate park without navigating numerous buses? Such a bus line stopping every block would not work, but if it had just five or six stops it would be great.

    Finally, there are ALWAYS lots of people waiting at Van Ness and Market. Could they build a decent station there ? This is right by the MTC head quarters and when it rains there simply isn’t enough space to keep people out of the rain. It just looks bad. Besides, the station is ugly and the Next Bus is always broken there. Perhaps even Muni could buy that doughnut shop and build a mini shelter/park. Another idea is to put a Next Bus sign inside the metro station that people know when a bus is coming. Some seats would also be nice.

    Posted by Brian Tyler | 23 March 2009, 6:35 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: SFTEP Moves Forward to Environmental Assessment « Transbay Blog - 21 October 2008

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Subscribe

RSS Feed Facebook Twitter Flickr

Archives by Month

Archives by Topic

Archives of all blog posts, organized by topics and themes. Click here for more.

Links

Links to some of our favorite urbanist and transit blogs, websites, advocacy groups, news sources, and government agencies. Click here for more.


If you are interested in California water issues, you may want to check out my other blog on that topic.

Copyright © 2007-2013 Transbay Blog.
Advertisements