Drastic cut in travel times part of Muni’s ambitious long-term vision

[CreekDog]

I have four solutions:

1) Dedicated transit only routes that physically exclude non transit from transit corridors.

2) Fewer stops...many areas MUNI stops each block or two.

3) Express routes that have stops every mile or so and go across town.

4) Bus rapid transit on Geary Blvd.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/05/drastic-cut-travel-times-part-muni-s-ambitious-long-term-vision


By: Will Reisman | 05/06/13 8:37 PM


CINDY CHEW/2010 S.F. EXAMINER FILE PHOTO


Muni's executive director aims to reduce travel times.

For Muni to be a reliable transit system consistently used by commuters, travel times need to be significantly reduced -- a point emphasized by the agency’s executive director.

Detailing the cure is the easy part; figuring out how to accomplish that task is something else.

As part of its long-range vision, Muni has laid out ambitious goals along its major transit corridors, with the plan calling for the travel times of some routes to be cut in half. For example, it currently takes 40 to 50 minutes to travel between Ocean Beach and downtown San Francisco. Muni wants to reduce it to 25 minutes. Similarly, getting from The Embarcadero to the Bayview district takes 40 to 50 minutes. The goal for that route also is 25 minutes.

Ed Reiskin, head of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni, conceded that the goals are lofty and something to strive for in the next 50 years. But he said its important for the agency to begin considering these initiatives now, before population growth in the Bay Area overwhelms Muni and makes it completely unattractive for passengers. The Bay Area is expected to expand from 7 million residents to 9 million by 2040, and The City will see major growth in previously sparse areas such as Mission Bay and the central waterfront along Third Street.

“If we’re going to accommodate the growth that is going to come to The City in a way that enables Muni to carry passengers effectively, we need to achieve these reductions in travel times,” said Reiskin.

...

Increasing transit-only lanes is a must, as is introducing more bus-rapid transit lines—heavy-duty vehicles that benefit from traffic signals timed to prioritize their routes. Both of those recommendations come from Muni’s Transit Effectiveness Project, a review of the system that was carried out in 2008.

...

[NBachers]

1. The "Bus Only" lanes downtown on Mission are filled with cars

I'm also interested in the "Instant Vehicle Crusher" concept for people sitting in their cars, double parked in traffic. It would have forks on the front that would lift the vehicle into a hopper, where it would be immediately shredded.

[KamaAina]

2. Fewer stops could be problematic

the service standard is that Muni stops within two blocks of 90 percent of The City's addresses (it used to be 95!)

They could, of course, run more limited lines like the 38L on Geary and 14L on Mission alongside the local service.

They could also add in more express routes like the 8X to outlying neighborhoods outside commute hours. Rather than stopping every mile or so as you suggest, the 8X makes local stops along Geneva and San Bruno, then gets on the freeway to SoMa.

The BRT corridor they are examining most closely is not Geary but Van Ness.

[CreekDog]

3. I think you make a common mistake in understanding the standard for MUNI stops

first, to be within 2 blocks of a city address, doesn't require a stop every 2 blocks, but often, every 3 or 4.

second, MUNI's stop frequency was studied in recent years and found that there are too many stops, far too many, when compared to that standard.

third, yes, i support more express routes, but also crosstown routes that are even more "express" than current ones. for example, a bus that bypasses traffic and stops in downtown once or twice, then North Beach then some point in the Richmond. buses that start in the Excelsior and outer Mission and make one stop enroute afterwards and then a stop downtown.

to really speed things up. this is a 7x7 city, yet people really use their cars to go across town. some major express routes would deal with that. it's also a great excuse to have physically separated bus lanes in places, a form of Bus Rapid Transit (though it doesn't need to be that precisely).

and yeah, the Van Ness BRT makes a ton of sense since buses get tied up there so much by traffic, while Geary buses do move well. but Geary is a corridor so heavily traveled that it can support BRT, Rail, Subway, etc. the rail systems on that route are justified by the level of travel.

thanks for talking transit to me, so few people here like to discuss it in depth!

[KamaAina]

4. But what if you're not on the street where the bus runs?

What if you're on the next street over (say, Anza between Geary and Balboa)?

Routes such as those you describe are common during peak-direction commute hours. Maybe they just need more of them all day.

As it happens, I'm on my way to a VTA budget panel this very afternoon. On light rail, of course.

P.S. Ever hear of TransForm? They're a transit advocacy group here in the Bay.

http://www.transformca.org

[CreekDog]

5. easy, they could spread the stops, coordinating them to stagger with the Geary and Fulton St. stops

so the 5, the 31, and the 38 would get more spread out stops, would stop less frequently and speed up.

it takes like 40 minutes to get from Market St. to around Anza-ish on a local 31 anyway. that needs to be sped up.

and remember, the standard is 95% of addresses. doesn't need to be within 2 blocks of EVERY address.

[KamaAina]

6. Also, seniors and people with disabilities raise Cain when stops are spread out

and I don't mean Matt.

They succeeded in blocking BRT along Telegraph in Oakland and Berkeley (the proposal did not include any supplemental local service). The route will instead run from San Leandro BART through East Oakland to downtown along International.

edit: What about 31L'S and 5L's? The Richmond is problematic due to the lack of Muni Metro out there.

[CreekDog]

8. seniors and people with disabilities don't all do the same thing

they want faster buses as well.

[KamaAina]

7. Fifth solution, proposed by Ed Lee, of all people: BART extensions

The City is paying the same half-cent sales tax as the East Bay, you know.

My map (yes, I'm a transit geek ) shows one branching west from the main line after Civic Center, perhaps under Fell and Oak, with stations at Fillmore and Masonic, then under GG Park (could that be accomplished without digging up the park?) to Park Presidio, with a station at Geary/Clement and another, with parking, within the Presidio, which could serve as a terminal for commuter buses from Marin. Another branches east past 24th and Mission to a station somewhere near the Farmers' Market (possibly with parking), then eventually along Palou to Third, and conceivably to Hunters Point, depending on the density of development out there (I've got some ideas on that, too. )

[CreekDog]

9. I like this guy's idea, his blog on this topic is a good one

i liked the blog post that went with the map, but sadly, the blog seems to be gone.

i support infill, urban extensions and stations more than suburban extensions, though some suburban areas have high usage and density to support it and in those cases, such expansion is okay.

i also like the idea that the Central Subway will tunnel out in North Beach. this is a high density area separated from our rail transit in SF. that should be addressed at some point.