The 66 would be an excellent line to test shuttle vans. The buses run virtually empty all day and night.
I remember when I first moved to SF 40 years ago we had something called "Jitneys." I lived on a bus line so almost never used them, but as I recall they were like a cross between a Super Shuttle and a bus. The cost was cheap - about the same as a bus (25 cents back then) and they had routes sort of, but stopped where ever you wanted off. I think they were small - only held 8 or 10 people. Maybe someone who used to ride them can explain in better detail. Anyway, I sort of remember that they ran in the downtown area and filled in where busses didn't have actual routes or in some way got you from your bus stop to your job.
I doubt we could have them again - not handicap accessible, probably safety issues, not unionized, etc., etc. Too bad - they provided a nice alternative to busses.
Anyone out there remember more? Would they be worth considering?
I know our streets are crowded and there are many efforts to reduce traffic, but we still have people who need to come to the downtown area to shop, visit doctors or other professionals, go to work in offices, etc. What about building multi-story garages (please, no screaming!) either above or below ground at some of the main entry points to the city and then have free shuttle service to the downtown area or to BART or LRV stations.
For example, if you built a multi-story garage near the end of the GG Bridge and the Presidio, people arriving from the north bay could park their car and their parking tag could be used on special shuttles or busses that went directly from the parking garage to downtown. The same could be done at the freeway exit where 280 ends. Another great place would be near Alemany or Silver Ave or Industrial just before the 280/101 merge which clogs with traffic all the time - a freeway exit to a parking lot right there would be awesome. The key is that the parking fee for the day would entitle the driver to shuttle or Muni access for the day, and shuttle service to and from the satellite parking lot would be frequent enough that it would be a viable alternative.
Shuttles, or busses, would run in loops to the financial district, union square, civic center, etc. The idea would be that each shuttle loop would be short and, like busses, would have enough overlap so a visitor could hit several destinations.
If the shuttles were similar to those used for airport shuttles to rental cars and long term parking, they would have shelves for shopping bags and would run frequently between the parking garage and the target area.
Of course, this doesn't have to be a separate shuttle service - it could just be plain old Muni, but the principle would be the same: large parking facilities outside the heart of the city with easy, reliable, safe, cheap (or free) access the key areas within the city.
In fact, Satellite Parking already works in other counties with BART. The difference is that the cars are parked for free and the drivers pay to ride Bart. In SF we could just flip it - pay to park but ride for free. Note: "Free" Muni or shuttle access is not a problem since it would be covered by the parking lot fee, and if shuttles are used, then the operators wouldn't need fare boxes. But those are just details.
The question is: Would/Could/Should satellite parking be considered for San Francisco?
This idea is not new but has never been adequately pushed by the public. The underground parking facility at the Lucas Letterman complex will hold an enormous number of cars but is not accessible to most people. There is absolutely unused parking space that could be help ease the downtown parking congestion.
Paid for by Phil Ting for Assembly 2012. FPPC ID# 1343137
TO RESET SF
Arts & Culture
Sign up for the ResetSan Francisco Newsletter
Join Phil Ting for Assembly
Support the Middle Class Scholarship
Phil Ting: An API for Ethics in City Gov't
VIDEO: Your Thoughts on Muni
Time for Universal Internet Access
Is New York City Taking the Lead?
San Francisco Needs Open Government
Do you think gun owners should be required to get liability insurance in CA?