22 Fillmore Proposed Route

The SFMTA’s proposed 22 Fillmore Transit Priority Project will realign the 22 Fillmore route to continue along 16th Street east of Kansas to Third Street, connecting the Mission to Mission Bay and adding transit only lanes along 16th.

Other proposed project improvements include the reduction and relocation of a number of stops to speed transit; 14 improved pedestrian intersections, with bulbs and wider sidewalks, for a safer experience; and an enhanced bike route along 17th Street.

22 Fillmore Transit Priority Project Summary

With the proposed line serving as a major east-west connector for San Francisco, and passing right in front of the proposed Warriors Arena, one improvement which seems to be missing from the project: a direct connection of the line with Caltrain at 4th and King.

An open house to discuss the project, with a specific focus on the transit-only lane options, is scheduled for 6pm this evening.

22 Fillmore Transit Only Lane Options

71 thoughts on “Connecting The Mission To Mission Bay (But Not To Caltrain)”
  1. The line should loop up Third to Channel and back down Fourth to 16th. That would cover the Fourth Street retail corridor and put the line within one block and bridge of Caltrain. Ending the line at Mission Bay Boulevard makes no sense.

    1. +1 on subway – it’d be great to have a line along 16th running E-W from Mission Bay to a Castro intersection with the other Muni underground lines – stopping en route at the J-Church (which also should be undergrounded to south of Dolores Park), BART/Mission Street, and Potrero Hill.

        1. As I’ve said before here, I’m more than willing to pay more in taxes to see public transit improvements.

          And there is literally no time like the present; interest rates are so low that it’s almost criminal that we aren’t building infrastructure left and right; we can pay off the expenses in 20 years for virutally the same cost as incurred today.

          1. If you’re suggesting this be done entirely locally by per capita tax, there’s no way in Hell it would be economically or politically feasible.

          2. How is my statement “I’m more than willing to pay more in taxes” translate in your head into me asserting that we can pay for all this with city funds? You are aware that there are these things called state and federal taxes too, right? (I hope so; April 15th is approaching fast.)

          3. “…interest rates are so low that it’s almost criminal that we aren’t building infrastructure left and right…”

            So true. Instead we’re squandering this once in a lifetime opportunity on sprawling exurban McMansions which just make our transportation problems worse.

        2. are you aware of the amount of city budget we actually have? its freaking enormous for our size. if our elected leaders had the vision and the will, real progress could be made.

          1. You can’t be serious! Then, there’s that Geary line to the beach, that oh-so-needed line the length of Van Ness, extension of an electrified, undergrounded Caltrain to the Transbay Center, HSR, not to mention the infill BART stations in the City, not to mention that second Bay-crossing tube, HSR, etc., etc.

            And, all the wish lists of LA, Houston, Mobile, Pittsburgh and every other metro area in the US.

            Of course, we’ll then have then have a massive rebuild of crumbling infrastructure including roads, bridges, sewage disposal railbeds (even for the crappy systems we do have), etc., etc.

            There’s only one source of funding for the kind of country we really want and that’s the 600+ Billion the F’ing Pentagon pisses away each and every year, year after year.

            No single, city, region or state can even begin to tackle these needs without access to the money we keep wasting on the military.

          2. Yes, Orland, god forbid we dream. God forbid we actually try to look ahead and plan, instead of simple react to the present, tweaking services in response to crisis after crisis. Europe can do it. China can do it. Why are we so content to let our transportation infrastructure not merely advance into the 21st century, but decay and fall apart? (There are sections of BART track on the Concord line so word down that trains are restricted to under 30 m.p.h., lest they derail.) If government won’t lead the way, then it is up to ordinary Joes to prod and push and try to change the dynamic.

          3. For such a wealthy area of the country, our infrastructure sucks big time, especially transit. Every year, traffic congestion gets worse throughout the region. Meanwhile, as the rest of the world beefs up its HSR and mass transit systems, MUNI sits idle on a 7 year old TEP doing nothing to improve even the basics, like the mandated on-time performance. I take that back. MUNI created a flurry of media attention by painting a couple blocks of Church St. red for transit-only vehicles (insert pat on the back and salary increase to all involved).

            BTW-I should have been more clear on my subway thumbs up. Get a station built in this area as part of a new BART line and tube.

          4. Story in today’s SF Biz Times details yet another effort by the majority Republicans to gut mass transit projects. But you know those bastards are never going to stop feeding the bloated military.

          5. This story in the Biz Times is really disconcerting in as much as it doesn’t say as much as what it does. Although providing no details, it is insinuated that, not only would the cuts affect future proposed projects, it might even mean defunding of appropriations already committed. Think California and SFBA might be targeted?

    2. +2. on subway, but the city planners are not thinking beyond 1 yr from now, have no visions and no cajones to propose and fight for real progress. 16th street is already slow and a mess to drive on. Transit only lanes will make it much worse causing more congestion and pollution. we should be going underground. such a joke for a “world class city”

      1. Just reducing the # of intersections where left hand turns were legal and adding turn lanes at Potrero and Mission would make a huge difference in the traffic flow on 16th.

        1. +1 for left turn lanes at Potrero and at Mission.
          So simple, so cheap, so effective to speed up the 16.

    3. Not sure about transit being optimized here, but certainly agreed on a subway. The way it’s presented, PH and Dogpatch get shafted

      Another quick fix would be to extend the N-Judah from Caltrain down King to 7th St. and around to 16th St terminating at the new Arena location.

      1. Also a good idea – and underscores the bizarre innanity of Muni buidling two unconnected streetcar stops catty-corner from each other (the N on King, west of 4th, and the T on 4th, south of King). Always a frustrating crap-shoot when I rode Caltrain into the City – which will depart first – which station should I run to, only to be disappointed. The N should have been routed to turn south on 4th as well, to utilize the same platforms.

          1. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, because you already have to cross half of King to get to the N-Judah platforms, and then walk west several dozen yards, for a total distance virtually the same as that to the T platforms.

          2. Going from the 4th St./Berry platform (K/T) you go past the King St. (N) platform which is parallel to the terminal. That’s enough for most to bitch about.

        1. And given the lack of signal priority at this intersection means train often have to wait several minutes to reach the platform. And once the E line opens there will be more delays as the historic streetcar street-level platforms are separate from the LRVs.

          You raise an interesting point. Get rid of the current N-Judah platform at 4th/King and have the N run down the K/T to 23rd St. It will double up on service to MB. Keep the existing tracks on King to hold trains for events at AT&T Park like they currently do.

          Hey, Orland…an even quicker fix to what I proposed earlier.

          1. That was a mighty circuitous route to get to a destination the T already goes past much more directly.

            Now, you’re doing to the Metro what is the problem with so many bus routes as discussed in other exchanges here: meandering around congested neighborhoods making it nearly impossible to maintain on-time headways in the subway. That M-Market proposal (link also here) deserves serious consideration.

            I was in Philly last summer for the Giants series staying downtown. The Broad Street Line underground goes from Downtown out to the ballpark crossing a good part of residential section of town. Straightshot, back-and-forth, back-and-forth while intersecting the grid of surface transit. Best single transit service I’ve ever experienced.

            Underground Metro should be like that from Embarcadero to West Portal, never going out onto the surface streets.

          2. Oh, now I realize this has been the subject of similar conversation. I still think it makes a lot of sense. So what if you have to transfer from surface to the underground system which should be able to much more regularly maintain close headways? Sure, further subways beyond the Central would be ideal, but money considerations greatly limit those options.

          3. Actually, it’s the same route the current K/T uses. Given the huge development going on in MS, plus the Arena in a few years, doubling up on transit lines is a smart idea. Once the CS opens people will have the option of taking the T to Powell for transfers or the N to the Embarcadero, relieving a chokehold at any one underground station. Plus, if either the T or the N gets snagged there is always an option.

          4. @Mark, A few years ago, I was talking to a Muni planner, and there was talk of taking the E and instead of terminating it at the 4th/King N stop, they would route it south down the T line with a turnabout roughly at 16th. Not sure whatever happened to that plan…

            Plus, I’m not a fan at all of using the historic cars for E. Use the current cars and limit the historics to Market only. Reasoning for this was highlighted to me by another Muni planner who told me that multiple lines on the same track which have varying cars lengths causes queuing problems. If the E and N were both identical trains/lengths, supposedly queuing problems go away where the two lines overlap. Plus what you already noted about dealing with the hassle of street level platforms and elevated platforms on the same track – those would go away too.

      1. Thanks for pointing out that site. I forgot all about it. While it has some flaws which I won’t get into here, the main takeaway is that the Market St. subway needs fewer lines to provide faster and more reliable service while rerouting other lines to improve crosstown transit. SF transit in the 70s was still built on the old practice of funneling everyone into downtown and the financial district. However, job centers have shifted over the past 4 decades, but we still have 5 lines converging into one tunnel, ignoring the new commercial and residential centers popping up, especially in SOMA. Even the Central Subway, which will cut through SOMA, comes up short by ending in Chinatown.

  2. I don’t think people understand how heavily the 22nd street Caltrain is used. I have seen people there in the morning and they tend to be shocked. Most drive and park or are dropped off by loved ones however.

    1. Caltrain is seriously talking about adding a stop in Bayview, 3rd st/Oakdale. That will help a lot, and drop offs will have another choice. Plus many new Bayview residents work in tech or drive south, so this will be a viable option for some of them.

      Bayview Caltrain station – Build it!

          1. How about better coverage in the western half of the city? Getting to Caltrain is ridiculous from the Richmond/Sunset. 45-60 min just to get to 4th/Townsend, not factoring in the Caltrain ride itself. Oh wait! There’s the packed 28 bus to BART to Millbrae for an untimed transfer. Never mind. It’s all good.

          2. its pretty clear that a subway line down geary would be the most improtant subway addition to make.

  3. I vote alternative 1. The reduced left turns will help keep traffic flowing with the reduced number of lanes

  4. Not connecting this to Caltrain at one end and just terminating it in nowheresville in the middle of MB is just a bone-headed “d’oh!” kind of move. Come on, wake up transit planners!

    1. Agreed, totally boneheaded. If anyone who works for SFMTA reads this site, feel free to explain yourselves (anonymously)…

        1. The entire city fleet should be switched over to natural gas or hybrid – get rid of all those stupid overhead eyesores, as well as the problems they cause at every intersection and wye.

          1. We’re wedded to electrical wires until a major earthquake knocks 80% of them down for a few years.

    2. It may be nowheresville now, but not for long. In case you didn’t notice, there are a dozen large apartment building under construction there …

      1. True, but ideally a line terminates at a logical terminus, like the end of a major street or a connection to another line. Not just at an arbitrary intersection in a neighborhood.

  5. The SFMTA accidentally came up with a better solution than rerouting the 22 off of Potrero Hill – the 55 16th Street, which is currently running. If SFMTA kept the 55, and redesigned 16th Street everyone would win. By getting rid of the 55, and taking the 22 off the Hill, Potrero Hill and Dogpatch lose.

      1. Yes, I understand that. However, it is (with adjustment of its western terminus) a better solution than diverting the 22. The need to run the 55 was the accident of which I spoke.

    1. The 55 was another badly-planned route. It only runs to Mission, just two blocks shy of connecting with the J, which would have been an easy and valuable connection.

  6. Few things. Keep the 55 (as a non electric bus) Reduce the number of stops as it travels along 16th St. (Does it really have to stop every block?) Send the 55 non-trolley bus up to 4th St. to serve the new retail district along 4th, the new Benioff/UCSF Hospital, UCSF Mission Bay Campus, and then across bridge to connect to CALTRAIN. I really don’t know why the planners @ SFMTA can’t think this out. Maybe they want everyone to use a bicycle to get arount and obvious answers are not being considered

    1. the MTA absolutely wants everyone to ride a bike and is gearing every policy decision in that way. the fact that a vocal 3% can sway the city to be pr0-bike always againsts motorists, and sometimes against transit, is ridiculous

      1. Seems someone forgot to mention this to them when they pushed forward with the $2 billion Central Subway to nowhere.

    2. Definitely keep the new 55 16th St. line as permanent extending from Castro to Third (Willie Brown Blvd.) and simply run it back-and-forth, back-and-forth, with as short of headways possible. I’m not sure the volume of travelers from the neighborhoods served going to Cal Train would warrant taking off such a direct course. I also don’t expect the 4th St. commercial corridor (when ever it truly gets off the ground) warrants putting transit on it as a destination from other parts of town. I think the connections (T at Channel and 55 at 16th) would be sufficient as it will primarily serve local residents and others already in the area for events at China Basin and the Warriors’ arena, etc.

  7. Sounds like a nice incremental improvement to one of the city’s slower bus lines.
    I’d love to see more like this around the city.

  8. I hope they change the 33 as planned to take the old 22 route up onto PH along 18th rather than stopping at Potrero Ave. This changes replaces this part of the 22 service so the PH is still well served.

    1. A switch to from the 22 to a 33 takes an unreliable and slow bus, with a long route through dense areas and replaces it with a bus with a longer, more complicated route through dense areas and with longer headways. While the lines look the same on a map, it’s a reduction of service to the neighborhood.

      1. Longer lines also have an increased likelihood of experiencing a delay, which is exacerbated for any vehicle stuck to overhead wires.

      2. One thing I read is that they are considering running the 33 more often than it does currently. I hope that happens. As for the 22, I actually have to ride it sometimes, and I’ve found it is so bunched up in the evenings that I’ve had to walk home, from 18th & Castro to 20th & Texas. Not sweet. It’s a crappy bus line. I think it’s worse than the 33 because it travels further on extremely congested streets.

      3. About 25 years ago, MUNI supposedly revamped the entire system by realignment of routes to go from a “hub and spoke” system to a grid. Still, we have routes as you describe meandering about town changing directions making all kinds of right angle turns for no apparent reason.

        Great if your errand just happens to take you from Pacific Heights to the Bayview (24), Presidio to Crocker Amazon (43), or Marina to Hunters Point (19) and you have the time for a sightseeing journey along the way. A true grid work in spite our tortuous topography would allow much more straight forward trip planning.

    2. The 33 currently serves San Francisco General Hospital on its final Potrero Avenue segment, and forcing patients coming from the Castro, Haight, western Mission, etc, to transfer onto the always-crowded 9 would create a hardship for riders wrestling with crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs. Neighbors, patients, and staff at SFGH, along with groups like Senior and Disability Action, are campaigning to keep this leg of the 33 as is.

      A possible solution is to keep the 55 and reroute its eastern end to pick up the streets that would be lost to the proposed 22 reroute. That way riders on the 22 to Mission Bay’s hospital would also be able to get there without transferring.

  9. I live in Dogpatch. Dogpatch is growing rapidly. I use the 22 all the time. This is stupid unless you give us an alternative. We don’t have a lot of options.

  10. MUNI improvement project. I read an article yesterday on the new Muni imporvement project. Below is really funny quote from the article.

    Muni is also ramping up its re-branding efforts with changes to some route names. “Limited” lines will now be called “Rapid” lines to shed the “negative connotation,” said Muni

    HAHAHA. Im sure changing the name is going to fix all the problems

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *