Muni’s on time rate slips from 72% to 71.1% this quarter
Peaking at 75% in Q1 2010, Muni’s on time performance continues to fall short of the 85% on time rate which was mandated by San Francisco voters 12 years ago. John Haley, Muni’s operations chief, said that some of the calculations are skewed by lines that have timed transfers, and the lengthy K-T line’s inability to adjust it’s schedule when delays occur. Haley said that he will continue to work on improving on time performance; one of the ways he plans to do so is by focusing more on mechanical and electronic repairs that can prevent vehicles from suddenly failing while in service.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
Get rid of about 1/2 of the bus stops and that would go a longnway to speeding up buses on surface streets. The way thensystem is set up now is a joke and simply doesn’t work.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.
I am perplexed as to see why MUNI focuses on the timeliness of the buses. They may be on time, but the bus does not travel far. nI agree with Rickrub. I’ve compared public transportation to SAMtrans, AC transit, and free shuttle buses from Emeryville and Palo Alto. The general consensus is that they spaced out their bus stops so that people commute to places faster, rather than have an impression of a bus-tour around the city, where every passenger is a cripple. San Francisco residents already walk more than a block to get around places; there is no need to put a bus stop after each block (Such as the 1-california, 2-clement or in the mission district). By reducing the number of stops it takes to get from downtown to Richmond, it will:nn-Reduce the downtime that the bus takes dropping off and picking up people.n-Catch the lights and make the bus line more streamline with the rest of traffic.n-Concentrate passengers at the remaining stops, which makes those bus stops more efficiently used.n-Carry fewer people per bus and reducing the stress load. If the buses got around the city faster, then there wouldn’t be a bottle neck of people waiting further along the route.n-Preserve bus stops that link to nearby bus lines. There are bus stops that doesn’t serve anything except for the residents around that block.n-Reduce maintenance costs for bus stops.nnIn addition, I feel that limited bus lines are not truly limited because they do not outrun the normal terminal lines (for example, the 38 outbound bus lines are tied in timing until they reach fillmore street, and at which point the limited buses finally pull away). This problem is also apparent for express lines as well. They do an excellent job flying through half of the city, until it hits the last 10 blocks–where it has to stop after each block.nnUnderstandably, there are areas of the city that even if bus stops were reduced, they will still suffer with delayed bus times. This is predominant in the bus lines that crosses market street, which does not seem to have a clear method to fix. nnHopefully the administration will understand that a reduction in bus stops is a step closer towards a speedier recovery for MUNI.