[Carfreeliving] Stop Consolidation
Andrew Sullivan
andrew at sulli.org
Tue Mar 1 11:57:02 MST 2005
Stop consolidation is a great idea - moving stops to one every two
blocks where blocks are short can save significant operating costs and
speed up service for all riders.
On the 21-Hayes, I would suggest proposing some consolidations, along
with extending bus lanes, to Muni now. Why not add an outbound
bus-only lane on Hayes from Market to Gough once Octavia Blvd. and the
ramp open? Combine that with consolidations along the route and you
might be able to save a bus on the line, which would be real savings.
Unfortunately, people like Chris Daly have consistently blocked it -
most recently on Geary/O'Farrell, where stops to be consolidated were
even closer than those on Hayes. Perhaps the budget crisis will change
some people's minds about this.
Andrew
On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:45, Mike Sallaberry wrote:
>
> I suggested to someone up in Muni that they use this opportunity to
> skim unnecessary bus stops off routes across the city. By shaving bus
> stops, travel times drop and less buses are needed per route. Each
> bus costs ~$100,000 per year to operate, apparently. And beyond the
> cost savings, shorter travel times means a more attractive option for
> people considering public transit, of course.
>
> The 21 Hayes, for instance, which has had service cut twice in recent
> years, has a stop on almost every block. I've "raced" it while
> walking and can often keep up with it for 5+ blocks where there was no
> traffic. Some of these questionable stops are also on the farside of
> STOP signs, forcing them to stop twice in a span of 100'. I suggested
> to Muni that they remove some stops years ago, and the response was
> basically that it is a good idea but it is politically difficult.
> Well, now is a good time to start making service efficient, even if
> some people become upset that they have to walk an extra block. A $57
> million dollar hole can also create opportunities.
>
> I hope that SPUR and Rescue Muni can help push for such changes.
> Mike
>
>
> Michael Sallaberry, P.E.
> Associate Transportation Engineer
> San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic
> 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 345
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> (415) 554 2351
> (415) 554 2352 (fax)
> Bicycle Hotline (415) 585-BIKE
> http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan <andrew at sulli.org>
> Sent by: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
>
> 03/01/2005 10:34 AM
>
> To
> Joshua Hart <joshua at sfbike.org>
>
> cc
> carfreeliving at livablecity.org
>
> Subject
> Re: [Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think SPUR was just being realistic about the budget. They support
> alternative revenue sources for Muni (as does Rescue Muni, as do most
> other alt-transportation types) but they also understood that with a
> $57 million deficit there's no realistic way to make up the difference
> without a fare hike this fiscal year. Longer term revenue sources
> like
> sales tax, parking tax, downtown assessment, vehicle environmental
> impact fee, and congestion charging will NOT be implemented in time to
> address this year's deficit, and there's no extra money in the General
> Fund.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:29, Joshua Hart wrote:
>
> > Hi Dave and all-
> >
> >
> > Thanks for setting up this valuable list. I have a question to
> pose-
> > It seems like the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
> > Association has consistently been on the pro-car, pro-development,
> > pro- downtown business, pro-wealth side of many issues lately.
> Their
> > lonely stand in support of widening MLK in GG Park, and in support
> of
> > yesterday's Muni fare increase clearly illustrates this bias.
> >
> > My question is- has SPUR always supported these policies? How have
> > other pro-environment, pro-ped/ bike/ transit organizations dealt
> with
> > this? (did SPUR's transportation committee actually vote to support
> a
> > Muni fare hike?)
> >
> > Just wondering,
> >
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Chappell, president of the nonprofit think tank San Francisco
> > Planning and Urban Research Association, said Muni's three-pronged
> > budget was fair and should lead to more efficient transit service.
> >
> > "The social and economic health of San Francisco depends on a
> strong
> > Muni, '' he said. "Your proposed budget has everyone sharing the
> pain.
> > That is correct."
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > | __o SF BICYCLE
> COALITION ___ __0
> > |
> > | _`\<,_
> Promoting the Bike
> > |___| _ \<,_ |
> > | (*)/ (*) for Everyday
> Transport
> > (*)+---(*)/ (*) |
> > |
>
> |
> > | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org
>
> > |
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23 joshua at sfbike.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list to facilitate and promote
> > car-free living in SF
> > To unsubscribe:
> > mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> > or, for all options, go to:
> >
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
More information about the Carfreeliving
mailing list