Comments on: Making Muni Faster and More Reliable Through Bus Stop Consolidation

By: David K.

David K. — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:40:55 +0000

I forgot to mention that these non-handicapped riders in wheelchairs are a big inconvenience when they ride crowded buses only a block or two and displace comfortably seated full fare paying riders(regulars and tourists). Also, whoever designed MUNI buses are idiots as there are hardly any space for old folks sitting down when the wheelchair passes by almost crushing their feet if they don't lift it out of the way.So either a bus redesign or American Disabilities Act supporters should pay for a dedicated Muni bus line. They should get rid of the handicap access for public transportatons as handicapped persons get taxi cab booklets to ride taxis for free so why slow everyone else down unnecessarily?

By: David K.

David K. — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:14:00 +0000

As obesity is a problem these days in America.I'm sure San Franciscans wouldn't mind walking an extra block or two to take the bus.How about trying bus stops every 5 and 10 blocks and see which works better? Also, what's the deal with homeless wheel chair users riding the bus when they're aren't really handicapped as both their feet move to propel the chair backwards? There should be different laws for the non-handicapped to board with wheelchairds, otherwise I myself will get a wheelchair so that I can kick 4 or more seated passengers out of their seats so that I can board the bus only a few blocks within the downtown or tenderloin.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:26:49 +0000

so Seniors and the Disabled aren't adversely impacted by such necessary changes. seniors and disabled with be adversely impacted just like everyone else will be adversely impacted -- and they'll be positively impacted, too. the thing to remember, though, is that everyone is being adversely impacted right now -- we don't have to talk about what will happen in theory in some philosophy class -- we can talk about the adverse impacts that riders are experiencing all over the system right now. it's not acceptable -- it has to change. if bus stop consolidation will bring more good than harm, then it needs to get done. and if new bus stops were added to lines, they should probably be the first candidates to be considered for being freed from their earthly concerns. i found the SFMTA's Project Manager's ambiguous "lots of reasons for new stops" answer off-putting -- if she doesn't know, who does? people expect the bus to pick them up at their doorsteps and drop them off in front of their destinations -- that 'assumption of extreme laziness' needs to end. we have to do whatever it takes to disabuse people of the idea that they have some sort of right to motorized transport from door to door -- they don't. it'll be interesting to see what happens if and when this new transit advocacy organization finally gets going. hopefully they can hire the StreetFilms video folks to shoot some promo ads in multiple languages. i remain skeptical that lazy, complacent, complaining, sheep-like SF transit riders can be cajoled into getting off their butts and actually doing anything about improving transit, but i wish the new organization the best of luck. walking up! bikes up! real transit up! cars down! buses down! this video has some seriously-fancy-shmancy editing/production -- good work.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:59:30 +0000

about Stop sign consolidation. Rescue Muni started trying to get MTA to get rid of them along the LRV lines a decade ago. Not much progress.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I don't dogmatically want to save ALL stops, I just find the reflexive desire of transit agencies to cut stops excessive.
LTDs do NOT cost extra, they are exactly the example in the animation -- faster throughput, more trips per shift. As to Van Ness, since the 47 is a diesel, making it the LTD would be easy.

By: Andy Chow

Andy Chow — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:44:54 +0000

I think bus stops should be distanced no shorter than a BART/Caltrain platform, which is 700 feet.

A challenge of adding more LTD service is that it adds operating cost, and that they have to use diesel buses. It is impossible to cut 1/4 of the local trolley bus route and divert the same vehicle for a LTD route on the same corridor because trolleys can't pass each other. (unless you have two sets of wires, which allows LTD to pass local, but not a local passing a LTD at a stop.

I believe that if those one block stops changed to two block stops on Mission, ridership will not drop. Some really short distance riders may end up walking, but it could attract longer distance riders. I also think that won't hurt if that would reduce crowding.

Overall, I think the worst transit experience is the Van Ness corridor, which it does not have LTD service, too many one block stops, and too many stops that are too short for buses to pull in.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:25:03 +0000

Streetsblog should have a contest where whoever finds the closest coupled bus stops wins a prize (Streetsblog hoodie?). Then use that bus stop as a posterchild for change. I know one along the 23 line that is within about 100 feet of the other. You can actually talk to people at the other stop!

Amd there is a related point that TEP hasn't touched upon. It's "Stop Sign Consolidation." Wouldn't it make sense to strategically place bus stops and stop signs together every 2 blocks?

I learned at an MTA meeting that they are opposed to ever removing any Stop sign. They said there is too much liability involved; and likewise every Stop sign has a constituency.

By: Seven

Seven — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:33:42 +0000

Why both the 16X and 71L buses stop at all the same stops (too many) in the inner/outer Sunset as the 71 bus escapes my logic. Limited and Express buses should have fewer stops. Or perhaps someone can enlighten me on this.

By: Adam Hartzell

Adam Hartzell — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:20:13 +0000

Nice succinct film on this topic. Thanks for bringing in a perspective from the Seniors/Disability community. As much as it's easy for me to walk a block or so more, we definitely need to take into consideration the best way to implement these changes so Seniors and the Disabled aren't adversely impacted by such necessary changes.

By: Clarence Eckerson, Jr.

Clarence Eckerson, Jr. — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:37:21 +0000

Nice job on this film.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:32:17 +0000

Great job.

Why we have a stop on the N at 12th AND one at Funston (13th), I'll never know. Whatever reason there was, it no longer exists today.

By: Troy

Troy — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:28:04 +0000

This is such a common-sense and needed idea--- it boggles the mind that after 3 years of study by TEP stop-consolidation is still being debated and may not even happen.

Have you ever taken the 21-Hayes? It's absolutely ridiculous. Stops on every single block between VanNess and Masonic. No wonder it's so slow. makes me want to drive. and I *want* to take the bus.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:45:10 +0000

@ Josh, well said and important points. Indeed transfer points are critical-- example 18th & Mission where the 33 turns off.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:30:29 +0000

Why is it so hard to understand that both local and Express/Limited buses are useful?
The stop elimination fiasco on the 38 is classic Muni. First an employee was detailed to spend lots of effort studying bus usage in San Francisco's densest neighborhood. No surprise, the LCL bus which runs about as frequently as the LTD stops every block where many riders board/alight. However, a majority of riders who board East of the Tenderloin are headed for somewhere West of Van Ness if not Masonic.
What to do? Muni after much thinking decided that eliminating several stops on the local would speed buses through the 'hood. No surprise, the Tenderloin riders howled and Muni backed down. A POOR solution to a real problem failed , so what should have been done? Shifting several locals each hour to LTD's would have sped up more riders while continuing to provide the needed local service. Serving two separate markets with tailored service is always better than trying to force both to fit one.
A further example, the film mentions the Mission street buses as stopping at many blocks in the dense commercial area between Duboce and Cesar Chavez. Why stop so often? Because more riders board/alight at any stop in that area on average than ride the 35 or 37 end to end.. Again, a far more useful upgrade would shift more service to the 14L (which was part of the TEP plans). Another tweak might be to have the 49's ALL run as LTDs . Serve the market!

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:23:59 +0000

Bus stop consolidation will either save Muni money or allow for increased frequencies, but it won't do both at the same time. I suspect the effort to remove un- or under-used stops would benefit from more clarity about which is the goal.
It would also be helpful to explain the criteria for determining which bus stops go. This short video is (naturally) broad brushed, but is there a more detailed process of plan that considers the many factors that would go into evaluating each stop?
For example, in this film the spacing on the 22 between Bryant and Potrero is criticized for being too short, but Bryant is the transfer point for the 27 and Potrero for the 9/9L/90. Plus, the 22 has to stop at Bryant to change drivers who start and stop their days at the Muni yard one block away. It doesn't make sense to remove these stops under any consolidation plan, and similar complications play out all over the city. If that's not addressed smartly, consolidating stops will seriously lower service on Muni.