Rendering of what Mission Street may look like soon via SFMTA

Transit riders and drivers alike should brace themselves for some significant changes coming to Mission Street’s traffic rules, some coming as early as this month.

As of Friday, 14 and 49 buses have eliminated stops at 15th, 19th, 21st and 23rd streets. Over the next two months, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency will paint red transit-only lanes all along the corridor. Finally, between March and April, left turns will be prohibited all along the Mission Street corridor, from 14th Street to Cortland Avenue, and right turns will be required at some intersections.

Starting in March, the agency will calm traffic along Mission Street by rolling out forced right turns away from Mission Street. Northbound car traffic (buses and bikes are exempt) on Mission Street will be required to turn right at 26th, 24th, 22nd 20th and 16th streets.

Until then, as the transit agency paints the red transit-only lanes, parking and loading zones along the curb will be temporarily unavailable in the stretches where crews are working. Bus stops may also be temporarily relocated, and though through traffic will be allowed, alternative routes are encouraged. The transit agency will post signs and notices for parking restrictions and bus stop changes prior to beginning construction.

The changes are intended to reduce travel times for the estimated 65,000 transit rides taken on Mission corridor bus lines every day. SFGate reports an especially high concentration of Mission street transit riders are dependent on public transportation to get around. The agency hopes to reduce total travel time along the corridor by five minutes in each direction.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. There goes SFMTA added more traffic to South Van Ness – the freeway for the Mission. When does South Van Ness get ‘traffic calming’? Potrero, Folsom, and Valencia have seen lane reductions and South Van Ness traffic has gotten worse and worse. Doesn’t SFMTA think before the make these changes. Where’s the public input? If the Mission actually had a Supervisor who lived in the Inner Mission we’d have a better voice in what happens in the neighborhood.

    1. The District 9 seat is viewed as private property by the elites in Bernal Heights. We will not be seeing a Mission District supervisor any time soon.

      1. Marc I don’t think we’ve had a Supervisor from the Inner Mission since the failed experiment we’re calling district elections. I think it’s time we went to a hybrid of district and at large Supervisors.

        1. Carlos, I don’t see where we had a Mission district supervisor since Medina was appointed.

          For all of the leadership development from the professional activocate corps, we’re not seeing anyone rising through their “ranks” that can satisfactorily answer the question “what did you do during the war for the Mission?”

          District elections are orthogonal to the dominance of the Bernal Heights elite clique over D9 politics. Were the Mission represented then some of the development that the Bernalians foisted upon the Mission might actually end up along the margins of Bernal and you know we can’t be having any of that. So as the Mission is immolated on a bonfire of venture capital, the Bernalians rest easy at night.

    2. I support the intention of Muni Forward and hope it is successful. It makes sense to prioritize transit and pedestrians on Mission Street.

      At the same time, I agree with Carlos Z. I am worried about the increased traffic on South Van Ness. I was hoping that the extra capacity of South Van Ness would be used to accommodate a median and a protected bike lane in the future. If South Van Ness becomes congested, it will be harder to implement the improvements that it needs. I hope that in the long run, no street goes untreated and multimodality prevails!

  2. The intention of the Transportation Effectiveness Project aka Muni Forward was to encourage transit choice riders to take Muni. The fate of transit dependent riders was not deemed important.

    This plan for Mission overwhelmingly benefits people moving through the Mission and overwhelmingly shifts the burdens to Mission residents and transit dependent shoppers. There are several levels of transit service available on the Mission corridor from the 14 local to BART. Removing the 14 local shifts the burdens for rapid transit that will never be faster than BART onto seniors and people with disabilities.

    Where were the Usual Suspects who claim to stand for “the most vulnerable” when it came time to represent for federally identified vulnerable communities? What, was there no funding for this so these communities are invisible to advocatists?

    And what will happen to the numbered streets, to South Van Ness, Valencia and Guerrero, when traffic is shifted off of Mission?

Leave a comment

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