I agree that it is a pain that it stops at Market. My hopes for
extension are a little more modest...just get it to a slightly less icky
neighborhood. An adequate and inexpensive (other than it would cost
approx 1 additional operator) (the wires are in place, altho not up to
regular service standards) would be daytime round inbound onto market,
right on 4th, left on Mission, left on 3rd, left on Market to regular
route. Better would be right on 4th, right on Mission, right on 5th,
left on Market (needs wires and switches on 5th). Often I will take the
21 from Powell and walk from Hayes, rather than waiting at
7th/McAllister.
>But more seriously I think Robert exhibits San Francisco's typical attitude toward MUNI which is that any change...will be bad. I think we all cripple ourselves this way.
Not at all, change can be good...but I think there are better candidates
for SoMa rerouting...for example, the 38-Geary...which already has
multiple outer terminals, could serve the 3rd/4th corridor. I was just
looking at existing riding habits.
>If we are going to make transit work in SF we need to start thinking outside of the 60 year old box of MUNI route structure. We need to identify new markets - I think South of Market is absurdly ill served - and provide new services.
I think the problem with SoMa service is not that it is absent, but that
it is infrequent enough to be inconvenient. When you can walk to most
SoMa destinations from Market in the space of one headway (12-15, except
for 3rd/4th), there is little incentive to take the bus. Unfortunately
most of SoMa is fairly low density, so lines there don't get crowded
often enough to support more service...as current demographic trends
continue, this problem will likely sove itself.
>In no way do I think that service should be cut on Market street but *I* don't assume that additional service in one area means a cut in another. I understand that is the MUNI way, and that is the view of our politicians who see MUNI in "minimum necessary" terms. But really, that has to change.
Looking at current develoopments, there needs to be more service, there
needs to be more car/bus segregation, and the Transit First policy needs
to be extended from not providing parking to PROVIDING options to
driving...and not just `captive audience' service...The service needs to
be dependable, safe and frequent enough that driving becomes less
worthwhile. However, this would involve more money, and signifigant
impacts on driving and parking.
OKOK, I'll get off my soapbox.
Robert Parks
22-Fillmore