Today’s Headlines

  • BART Commute Crunched Friday Due to Overnight Maintenance Truck Crash on Tracks (SFGate, KTVU)
  • Vallejo Man Charged With Felony for Painting Crosswalk (SFGateKTVU)
  • Supervisors Wiener and Breed Want Muni to Rearrange Seats to Increase Capacity (SF Examiner)
  • Employees at Martin Macks on Haight Street Want to Save Parklet (SF Examiner)
  • Two Men Suspected of Driving Car Into Excelsior Cafe (SF Examiner)
  • In Light of Recent Cyclist Death, Attorney Explains Garbage Truck Regulations (SF Examiner)
  • Urban Life Signs: Latest BART Shutdown Highlights Need for Second Transbay Tube
  • The Latest From the Marina Times on the SFMTA’s Proposed Polk Street Safety Improvements
  • Man Killed While Crossing Highway 80 on Bike in Berkeley (KTVU)
  • Officials Discuss Downtown Caltrain/HSR Extension at SPUR Forum (Green Caltrain)
  • Stakes Are High as Trial on CA High-Speed Rail Lawsuit Begins (CoCo Times)
  • Construction on SMART Tracks to Begin Over the Next Year (Marin IJ)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Ted King

    Re : SFMuni LRV seating
    I hope they explore a half+half option – bench seats on one side and front-/rear-facing on the other side much like the present center sections. There needs to be enough seats for people who are prone to motion sickness. The 1+2 seating from the front door to the rear door was and is a great feature on most of the PCC streetcars.

    P.S. “Highway 80” was a neat trick of an eye-grabber. I’m used to seeing I-80 (India eight zero). The other eighties (CA-82, CA-84) are on the peninsula IIRC.

  • Ted King

    Re : SFMuni LRV seating
    I hope they explore a half+half option – bench seats on one side and front-/rear-facing on the other side much like the present center sections. There needs to be enough seats for people who are prone to motion sickness. The 1+2 seating from the front door to the rear door was and is a great feature on most of the PCC streetcars.

    P.S. “Highway 80” was a neat trick of an eye-grabber. I’m used to seeing I-80 (India eight zero). The other eighties (CA-82, CA-84) are on the peninsula IIRC.

  • Ted King

    Re : SFMuni LRV seating
    I hope they explore a half+half option – bench seats on one side and front-/rear-facing on the other side much like the present center sections. There needs to be enough seats for people who are prone to motion sickness. The 1+2 seating from the front door to the rear door was and is a great feature on most of the PCC streetcars.

    P.S. “Highway 80” was a neat trick of an eye-grabber. I’m used to seeing I-80 (India eight zero). The other eighties (CA-82, CA-84) are on the peninsula IIRC.

  • Ted King

    Re : SFMuni LRV seating
    I hope they explore a half+half option – bench seats on one side and front-/rear-facing on the other side much like the present center sections. There needs to be enough seats for people who are prone to motion sickness. The 1+2 seating from the front door to the rear door was and is a great feature on most of the PCC streetcars.

    P.S. “Highway 80” was a neat trick of an eye-grabber. I’m used to seeing I-80 (India eight zero). The other eighties (CA-82, CA-84) are on the peninsula IIRC.

  • Ted King

    Re : SFMuni LRV seating
    I hope they explore a half+half option – bench seats on one side and front-/rear-facing on the other side much like the present center sections. There needs to be enough seats for people who are prone to motion sickness. The 1+2 seating from the front door to the rear door was and is a great feature on most of the PCC streetcars.

    P.S. “Highway 80” was a neat trick of an eye-grabber. I’m used to seeing I-80 (India eight zero). The other eighties (CA-82, CA-84) are on the peninsula IIRC.

  • Mark Dreger

    Muni’s current LRV design crowds standing riders by the doors when there is often room to spare in the other parts of the car. It is worth looking into a reconfiguration of seats if we are sticking with these cars for awhile – which is fine, but please MTA, they need rehab ASAP.

    Of course, just as with BART’s new rail cars, there’s a trade-off. Fewer seats means a rougher journey for those travelling to SF’s outer neighborhoods. Imagine standing all the way to Taraval & Sunset, just to be booted off to wait for the next train.

  • mikesonn

    Does the Central Subway include purchases of new LRVs as well? If so, what seating configuration will they have?

  • Mark Dreger

    That’s always been such an unknown huh? They’ve vaguely referred to purchasing new rail cars as part of the project, but I haven’t seen any formal plans until now. You’d think they would given the capacity issues with the Metro already.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    High floor streetcars with moving stairs and constricted vestibules for a primarily street running system with only seven (and easily reconfigurable, incrementally) 1970s-style high-floor platform stations out of scores of stops?

    What sort of idiot would spend hundreds of millions of other peoples’ money post-1980 on such a bat shit insane configuration?

    Oh that’s right: the exact same staff and consultants who NEED MOAR MONEY FOR MUNI. MOAR MONEEEEEE! Give us more money (beyojnd the two billion disappearing into our Very Special Friends’ pockets for the Central Subway, that is) to build on our proven record of success! This time for sure! Trust us!

  • If they bought new low-floor trains, all the existing stations would be unusable.

  • david vartanoff

    It really is time to lower the platforms in the tunnel. Richard is correct that they could be done incrementally. Once that is done, commonly available cars can be acquired with vastly greater Mean Time Between Failures. (spelled NOT BREDA)

  • david vartanoff

    The seating change is an admission Muni never intends to make enough trains per hour run in the tunnel–unspeakably shameful that in the 21st century, with all of the hi-tech talent nearby, Muni can’t match the TPH achieved with old fashioned relay driven signals in the 50s in both Chicago and New York.

  • mikesonn
  • Guest

    Linking to an “article” in the Marina Times? Please. That’s the site of the woman who uses he car as a weapon against cyclists to “teach them a lesson” right? She got owned in the comments section for being a psycho then the comments all went away as did the article. Hardly a credible source for anything.

  • Streetsblog, the article about the man being arrested for painting a crosswalk is very frightening.

    It mentions an officer was posted to prevent anyone from crossing there…HUH? Looks like before it was an unmarked crosswalk, which had the full rights as a marked one. Why did the city make it illegal to use? Why not post an officer to cite cars that dont stop? And why rush to paint it off?

    The article is pure madness.

  • Anonymous

    Portland uses high floor vehicles with street-level platform just fine. They’ve got both high floor streetcars and low floor streetcars. Trains are either 2x low floor or one of each. Of course Portland’s also managed to integrate streetcars from different manufacturers, something Muni failed at miserably.

    According to the Wiki article (via the Oregonian and Railway Age), Portland’s low floor streetcars were the first of their kind in North America in ’97. Lack of precedence, IMO, means it’s not a huge stretch to see the justification for the high floor vehicle case.

  • Don’t worry, there should be a piece on the blog tomorrow.

  • Henry

    Renovate the stations. Of course, there would be engineering issues with the four Downtown stations shared with BART, not to mention the cost.

  • Excellent

  • Andy Chow

    I don’t think it would be a wise use of funds. Not that I don’t think that Muni ideally should be low floor, but it is 20 years too late. The Central Subway would be entirely high platform all the way from the Bay View.

  • Mark Dreger

    Maybe we should have two different types of Muni LRVs. High-floor cars for the T-Third from Vis Valley to Chinatown. Low-floor cars for the rest of the system, which will always feel more streetcar-like anyway. The Market St stations will need to be renovated, but they’re almost due for upgrades anyway. The Embarcadero platforms will be an unfortunate loss of investment.

    LA’s Metro a good example of using different rail vehicles for different lines. Of course, the trade-off is a potential loss of the interoperability of vehicles.

  • Ted King

    Guerrilla Crosswalk Painter Arrested by Vallejo Police, Cheered By Neighbors :
    http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/04/guerrilla-crosswalk-painter-arrested-by-vallejo-police-cheered-by-neighbors/

  • Andy Chow

    There are rail systems in the US and around the world that are consisted of lines that cannot inter-operate, but behave like a single system in any other ways (system map, fare, schedule, etc). Even new systems recently built in China have lines that cannot inter-operate (some lines third rail, some lines overhead).

    The focus I think should be to make interoperability issue and non-issue for riders and make sure that transit experience are as common as possible across agencies.