[Carfreeliving] Re: Stop Consolidation
Andrew Sullivan
andrew at sulli.org
Wed Mar 9 14:03:43 MST 2005
Why not both Haight and Hayes? Stop consolidation and bus lanes are
CHEAP. The key is to establish the dedicated lanes as soon as the
Octavia ramp opens, BEFORE traffic volumes pick up again on Hayes and
other streets now used as egress from the freeway.
thanks
andrew
On Mar 9, 2005, at 13:02, Rachel Hiatt wrote:
> The Prop K BRT/TPS program will be an effort to comprehensively
> transit-prioritize a subset of the MUNI network citywide. This will
> include, among other things, focusing AVL (real time) implementation
> on these routes and consolidating stops along these routes. The
> program is just getting started now with BRT planning for Van Ness and
> Geary, but it includes lots of TPS (transit priority streets) as well
> – meaning, just short of a dedicated lane. I hope that ultimately we
> can get dedicated lanes on what are now TPS routes. The current plan
> for this BRT/TPS network highlights Haight rather than Hayes for
> improvements…
>
>
>
> In the next 5 years or so, a comprehensive re-examination of MUNI’s
> route structure, fundable by Prop K, could include a
> stop-consolidation element. It’s much needed.
>
>
>
> -Rachel
>
>
>
>
> From: Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org
> [mailto:Carfreeliving-bounces at livablecity.org] On Behalf Of Mike
> Sallaberry
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 4:47 PM
> To: carfreeliving at livablecity.org
> Subject: [Carfreeliving] Re: Stop Consolidation
>
>
>
>
> I think this bus lane is a good idea worth exploring especially since
> traffic levels will drop on that section of Hayes. Also, we should
> really use this budget crisis to highlight the need for stop
> consolidation. Does Muni even have someone who's ever really worked
> on systematically reviewing the usefulness of and need for certain bus
> stops? We consolidated stops as part of a bike lane project on
> Oakdale, reducing the need for the 23 to stop 3 times in just over 2
> blocks to just once. Beyond the work of an intern on Geary/O'Farrell,
> I think we did more on Oakdale in 10 minutes of discussion than has
> been done in the past 10 months throughout the city with regards to
> stop consolidation.
>
> The potential is significant, but I don't believe Muni's made much
> effort to implement such efficiencies, at least in the past few years
> as far as I can tell.
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan <andrew at sulli.org>
>
> 03/01/2005 10:57 AM
>
> To
>
> Mike Sallaberry <Mike.Sallaberry at sfgov.org>
>
> cc
>
> carfreeliving at livablecity.org
>
> Subject
>
> Stop Consolidation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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