SFist: Ask a Muni Driver

Ciaran

Wed, 30 May 2007 16:09:45 -0800

Ohh, the irony. Leaving work I discovered that my stop had been eliminated. Not that there was any notice about this until I and several others watched the 43 blow right past us. On asking the driver (after running to the next stop) he said the stop was eliminated a month ago (although buses had still been stopping). The faded yellow mark on the road (the only indication of the stop) being replaced with a slightly more faded yellow mark on the road.

NoeValleyJim

Tue, 29 May 2007 23:54:15 -0800

You bet lanes are going to be taken away from cars. They were on Market, they were (sort of) on Mission and they will be on Van Ness and Geary. And yes, we need more enforcement. One traffic cop, sitting and writing tickets for illegal left turners and diamond lane violators, could more than pay for his salary on Mission Street. The City needs to think of ways to raise money this way *and* enforce the traffic laws at the same time. The MTA has the authority to do this. I am betting that they use it.

Alex (the other one)

Tue, 29 May 2007 20:16:45 -0800

There are plenty of places to cut stops without a drastic reduction in service. Take, for instance, the L-Taraval. After West Portal station it stops at 15th & Ulloa and then again at 15th & Taraval *in both directions*. Going outbound this means a non-revenue stop at 15th on Ulloa, then pulling ahead about a quarter block to stop for the revenue stop. If it's a two car train, you've just blocked traffic on Ulloa twice. Then the train goes half a block, and stops at 15th and Taraval. How is this anything but wasteful? The outbound L should stop at 15th & Taraval, and the inbound at 15th & Ulloa. The mere fact that the bus often stops at every block DOES slow things down. Again, if you look at the L (or also in the Sunset the 28), these stop either every other block (L) or every block (28). Halving the number of stops would mean a walk of an extra block. Think about it. If the vehicle stops every four blocks, you're never more than two blocks (at most) from a stop. Is two blocks downhill really that far to walk? If there was an absolute need for stopping at every corner (and there's really not), the routes like the 28 should be split up into the 28-A and 28-B which would stop at alternate streets *and run frequently enough to be useful*.

Richard Mlynarik

Tue, 29 May 2007 18:27:11 -0800

Two alternatives: Increase the average speed of Muni vehicles from today's sub-8mph to a blistering, eye-watering, mind-boggling 9mph or so. (Let's not get ahead of ourselves and propose 15kmh or anything outlandish, shall we?). In direct consequence,immediately increase the level of service system-wide by 12%, without spending millions extra, or provide else today's official level of service more reliably with 12% fewer expensive buses and 12% fewer operators. Muni's just fine at 8mph or below. Chill out, dude! It's not like it's supposed to be useful for anything other than as a welfare program anyway. What we clearly need to do ASAP is score some extra cash handouts is buy a hundred extra buses (at $300k a pop) and 20 more "light" rail vehicles (at $3.5 million or so a pop) and pay TWU 250A members (at $40+/hour including overhead) to sit around "driving" those vehicles at 0mph (stop every block, wait behind every SOV, get hit at every traffic light) to keep such recklessly high average speeds from harshing our Special San Francisco Mellow. Well, San Francisco's choice is clear, isn't it?

survivor

Tue, 29 May 2007 14:32:08 -0800

I'm amazed at how often buses stop around here. I think reducing the number of stops is a real no-brainer. I don't see why we have to wait for 18 MORE months of study?? e.g.: the 21 bus west of Van Ness stops *Literally* at every damn block-- it's fucking ridiculous. i won't ride it.

anthony

Tue, 29 May 2007 14:07:45 -0800

the first comment above is good, except that Muni Driver's analysis is not thoughtful or cogent. the point of TEP -- and there have been public meetings reviewing the data collected so far -- is to determine where people go and how they use transit to get there. you might say, "duh, it's obvious that people need to get to and from work downtown." but what the data also bear out, for example, is that lots of people need to get to and from the western neighborhoods to City College, leaving downtown out of the loop altogether. Muni Driver also neglects to mention Bus Rapid Transit, which is intended to *separate* buses from auto traffic. what's the point of more buses if streets are clogged up by cars? studies are well under way to build BRT in corridors such as Geary and Van Ness, and this being San Francisco, those efforts are controversial. but these are not too controversial among riders, who have to make a choice about the effectiveness of public transit every day.

CRS

Tue, 29 May 2007 13:14:59 -0800

As an aside: A Transit Corridor is defined as quarter mile on either side of a "transit-rich" street. In SF terms, that's about 6 blocks on either side of a street. Why a 1/4 mile? Because that is what was determined that a person can "easily" walk to catch a bus.

Michael

Tue, 29 May 2007 12:49:05 -0800

Very thoughtful analysis of TEP. In terms of elderly mobility, San Francisco is not a very friendly place for Seasoned Citizens to live (in terms of costs of living, the hills, the neighbors, crime, etc.). Everything needs to be a balance. If seniors can't make it down to a bus stop 2 blocks away, or hobble up the low floor buses, they probably should be using paratransit or taxis (ouch, expensive!) or maybe actually consider moving into an assisted living center or something. Losing freedom as one ages is really harsh, but it's the process of life and every body has to deal with it sooner or later. Meanwhile, MUNI has to work well for most people (i.e. transport the most number of people quickly and efficiently) and it's really impossible to be able to provide a stop at every corner and a bus for every street.