Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFMTA asks committee to remove a Mission Street transit bulb to restore bus passing; supervisors seek more info and continue item
Summary
The SFMTA proposed removing an existing transit bulb on Mission Street so rapid buses can pass stopped local buses after a road diet and stop-spacing changes; supervisors raised procedural and General Plan concerns and continued the item one week for more materials and outreach.
Sean Kennedy of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency told the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee on May 1 that a recent Mission Street corridor project — which moved some routes to rapid stop spacing and implemented a road diet — created a condition in which a rapid bus cannot safely pass a local bus at the existing transit bulb near "20 Second." Kennedy said removing that bulb and extending or adding other bulbs at nearby intersections would restore a 21-foot travel lane and reduce the risk of cars crossing a double-yellow to pass a stopped bus.
Kennedy described the proposal as an uncommon request: "We don't often come before you asking to remove a transit bulb," he said, explaining the change flows from stop-spacing and a shift from four to three lanes in the northbound direction. Staff said the bulb originally went in around 1992, was approved in November 2015, and the corridor work rolled out across early 2016 into 2017.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin said the committee packet lacked sufficient background and warned of legal and policy limits on narrowing sidewalks and taking street space. "This packet that is before us is ... really skimpy," Peskin said, adding that General Plan objectives that could caution against sidewalk narrowing were not cited. Supervisor Katie Tang asked whether the district supervisor had been consulted and how the transit-only lanes interact with the proposal; SFMTA staff said they had discussed the corridor with the district office and framed the changes as part of a holistic corridor improvement.
With no public speakers on the item, Peskin moved to continue consideration for one week to allow further outreach and to provide more documentation; the motion was made and taken without objection.
The committee did not vote on the ordinance; instead it continued the item to allow staff to return with additional materials and consultation.
