muni changes 5 dec
Keith Keller
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/m1209/dec09service.htm
Any comments on what's good/bad about the changes (beyond the typical
sfgate comments of the "these changes suck, muni sucks, ban muni and let
everyone drive" nature)?
Personally, there aren't too many changes that (on paper at least)
affect me very much. In theory the increase in service on the 44 might
be useful, but I'm skeptical that these changes will help the
crush-volume during rush hour very much.
In other routes, I can't say I'm surprised to see the 26 go; after they
eliminated the leg serving SF State, the only real area it served was
northeast Glen Park. I would have liked to have seen the extended 36
terminate at 24th St. BART instead of St. Luke's, but that's a minor
quibble. I like that many of the limited lines will see increased
service. Other than that, I'm not really sure that this is the huge
improvement that Muni originally promised, but it doesn't look like an
enormous travesty, either.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
David Kaye
>Any comments on what's good/bad about the changes (beyond the typical
>sfgate comments of the "these changes suck, muni sucks, ban muni and let
>everyone drive" nature)?
I think they did an excellent job, given the lack of money. I'm happy to see
increased service on the major trunk lines (5 Fulton, 38 Geary, 14 Mission,
etc) and a pullback on lines where barely anyone rides (67 Bernal, Southern
Heights, etc.)
>In other routes, I can't say I'm surprised to see the 26 go; after they
>eliminated the leg serving SF State, the only real area it served was
>northeast Glen Park.
I happened to like the 26 before the elimination of SF State/Stonestown. I
used to ride it when I lived at Valencia & Mission to go to Stonestown and
State. There really wasn't anything in a crosstown bus to replace it, either.
>I would have liked to have seen the extended 36
>terminate at 24th St. BART instead of St. Luke's, but that's a minor
>quibble.
Given that BART is the de facto trunk service in town, I think every bus that
comes within 10 blocks of BART should stop at it.
Keith Keller
>
> I happened to like the 26 before the elimination of SF State/Stonestown. I
> used to ride it when I lived at Valencia & Mission to go to Stonestown and
> State. There really wasn't anything in a crosstown bus to replace it, either.
>
No, but...
> Given that BART is the de facto trunk service in town, I think every bus that
> comes within 10 blocks of BART should stop at it.
...given that BART is the de facto trunk service, I think taking BART to
Balboa Park and hopping on the M is a perfectly reasonable alternative
to riding the 26 all the way through the Mission, Glen Park, and Mission
Terrace to get to the same place in about 3x time.
As for the 36 and BART, I believe it stops at Glen Park after 5 Dec, so
the main difficulty is people who board north of Glen Park would have to
transfer to a Mission St. bus to get to BART (or walk from Cesar
Chavez). But again, also pretty minor; if you live near Chenery, for
example, you could walk over the Richland or Highland St. bridge to get
to the Mission St. buses, instead of waiting for a likely-infrequent 36.
Since we're talking about buses getting to BART, why doesn't the 35 bus
go to Glen Park BART? It gets within about five blocks (and a fairly
steep hill); why not bridge that gap? Then people who live on that
stretch of Diamond (between, say, Clipper and 29th) would have a BART
option as well as a Muni option (getting the 35 at Castro). Would 35
riders give up 5-10 minutes of frequency to get the convenience of
transferring from BART?