Subway Metadata Master Plan

A "heat map" of where San Franciscans want to see subways. Image: ConnectSF
A “heat map” of where San Franciscans want to see subways. Image: ConnectSF

Yesterday afternoon the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from transportation officials on efforts to design a “Subway Master Plan,” a long-range blueprint for a subway network for San Francisco.

From a release on the meeting from Supervisor Scott Wiener’s office:

Today at the Land Use and Transportation Committee, City transportation agencies delivered a presentation on their work to create a Subway Master Plan. Supervisor Scott Wiener called for the development of the Subway Master Plan last year, and authored an ordinance requiring the policy be developed. At the hearing, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) presented the initial findings – which they have called the Subway Vision — that they have been developing over the last year.

Streetsblog readers will recall that in August the SFMTA and other agencies launched a web page that invited people to draw subway lines and stations where they would most like to see them. The computers then combined the “over 2,600 unique submissions that ranged from a single line to a comprehensive system,” explained Sarah Jones, SFMTA’s Planning Director. “The most consistently drawn lines were in prior plans we reviewed, but also saw some other areas being opened up.”

So, as readers can see from the above map of the results, a Geary subway remains high on the agenda for a whole lot of people–as reflected by the thick red line running east-west on the map. Also on people’s minds is an extension of the Central Subway to the Marina, and some kind of line heading north-south on 19th Avenue.

Supervisor Wiener took notice of the demand on Geary; Jones and Wiener discussed that this probably reflects the overcrowding and plodding speed of the 38 bus. “People who rely on the 38 are very motivated,” he said.  But they both cautioned that subways have to be prioritized not only by where there’s current demand, but where there will be demand in the future. “It’s harder to think about where you’d want to go in 25 years, rather than thinking about traveling on the N or the 38 today, so the results here are expected,” said Jones. “But that doesn’t stop us from thinking about what future needs will be.”

“It does not appear the heat map is as strong down to the Bayview…we will be building an enormous amount of housing, but it’s not there yet,” observed Wiener.

Peter Straus and Brian Stokle of the San Francisco Transit Riders came to address the committee, along with a handful of others from the public. “It’s exciting to see lines on a map,” said Stokle, during the public comment period of the presentation. “But we have to finance it.”

Stokle and Straus both suggested the effort was a little too San Francisco-centric. “The next priority has to be the Caltrain DTX connection. SF has other transit—Caltrain and BART, we have to make sure all three work together well. We’re not an island,” added Stokle.

Brian Stokle and Peter Straus of the SF Transit Riders loved the map, but worry the DTX won't be prioritized. Photo: Streetsblog
Brian Stokle and Peter Straus of the SF Transit Riders loved the map, but worry the DTX won’t be prioritized. Photo: Streetsblog

Wiener seemed to take slight umbrage. “San Francisco is committed to HSR and the DTX,” he said. “I agree with the need for regional work. Unlike in the past we want San Francisco more engaged with our partners–BART and Caltrain matter to SF.” That said, Wiener was pleased with the “metadata” the maps provided. It’s worth noting the data also included real-world outreach at “pop-up” stations set up by the City, so the public didn’t necessarily have to use the Internet portal to participate.

Supervisors Wiener, Cohen and Peskin listened to presentations on the subway plan. Photo: Streetsblog
Supervisors Wiener, Cohen, and Peskin listened to presentations on the subway plan. Photo: Streetsblog

Digging into the data a little more, it’s clear a second Bay crossing was on the mind of quite a few participants. Streetsblog counted over forty lines drawn by participants across the Oakland Bay. However, since there’s no street grid to follow when indicating a desire for a second BART tube, the lines didn’t concentrate and form a heavy line the way they did on Geary and 19th Avenue. Additionally, it would be nice to see the map zoomed out, so that participants can continue some of these subways into Alameda and the East Bay.

A couple of the speakers from the public brought up another salient point: if SF is going to go all out and spend billions on a far-flung subway system, it has to zone for the highest densities around the stations–and that’s got to mean demolishing old, low density housing and surface parking around the stations. Otherwise, what’s the point of building a subway that can carry hundreds of thousands of people to housing that’s not dense enough to justify it?

And if San Francisco is going to go the all-subway route, it should look at trains that are compatible with BART or perhaps Caltrain’s coming electrified trains–both have higher speeds and more capacity than Muni’s light-rail fleet. Or, given the expense of subways, it may make more sense–at least in places–to improve surface rail routes, giving trains priority instead of having to stop at red lights for cross traffic, as they do now on so many lines.

Either way, Straus was pleased at the response to the ConnectSF outreach effort. “It’s touched a nerve. San Francisco has gone from being skittish about high-capital-cost rail projects, to having a $30 to $40 billion appetite for projects,” he said.

And that’s a good place to be politically.

The agencies will now take more feedback and write a final report by the end of the year. Did you participate in the ConnectSF survey? If so, what do you think of the results? Comment below.

  • First of all, you don’t know my history, where I live now, or where I lived before.

    Second of all, aggressive? I’m having a discussion, I haven’t been aggressive or anything. I’m being sanctimonious only in that I am being continually misrepresented here, and it’s getting a little tiresome.

    And, even if I am an “outsider”, people on this board should know far better than most the frustrating with not invented here syndrome. Don’t you think you can learn from how bike infrastructure is built in the Netherlands? Then why can’t you learn from the transit mistakes I’ve observed in Toronto?

    Honestly, you’re perpetuating the anti-transit anti-bike positions.

  • RichLL

    Being pro-subways is not being anti-transit by any stretch of your vivid imagination.

    But OK, sure, if we were a medieval, totally flat European city with narrow streets and endless canals, run by a centralized socialized government, then maybe your idea might have some traction.

    Just not here.

  • I know I know right, those bike lanes which work everywhere in the world will clearly not work in *this* city right? Because *this* city is special and totally unique in every way from all other cities and can learn nothing from them. Oh wait, transit, we’re talking about transit.

  • RichLL

    Changing the subject yet again? Now you want to talk about cycling in a topic about subways?

    But yes, San Francisco has very unique constraints based on location, topology, demographics, politics etc.

    And for the record, I never suggested that subways entail getting rid of buses.

  • For the record, I was being sarcastic.

  • keenplanner

    SFMTA could increase capacity by running more vehicles more frequently, and giving them no-nonsense priority over automobile traffic. All MUNI vehicles should be connected to a central computer and equipped with autonomous functionality, even if they have an operator.
    There really wouldn’t be a need to build more subways if SFMTA would just implement improvements that prioritize transit over traffic.

  • keenplanner

    Good idea!

  • stevenj

    The T line subway (using TBM) has been far less disruptive (except around station areas) than the Market St 3 level excavation. 4th St and Stockton St will not take a decade to recover.
    Subway construction of any kind is expensive in today’s dollars and even more expensive in 20 or 30 years when those cities that didn’t build earlier finally build. There were lots of people in the 60’s who thought BART was a white elephant and a boondoggle and would never work (original cost for the 75 mile system came in at appx $2billion). It costs almost $2billion now to dig 1 mile of subway. If close to 100,000 riders are now riding busses you can bet that a Geary subway would be well used from the beginning. Densities will increase along the line, historically that is what happened with BART and other large subway systems.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

This Week in Livable Streets Events

|
This week, the SF Planning Department kicks off its Green Connections Carnaval, the downtown bicycle parking ordinance goes before a Board of Supervisors committee, TransForm kicks off its regional Healthy Transportation Network, and more. Here are the highlights from the Streetsblog calendar: Monday: The SF Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee meets. On the […]

Extending the Central Subway: Why Stop at Fisherman’s Wharf?

|
The nascent prospect of extending the Central Subway beyond Chinatown gained steam this week with the release of a preliminary city study [PDF] that lays out some conceptual proposals to bring the subway further into the city’s northern neighborhoods. North Beach neighbors, who are living with construction disruption as the tunnel’s drill is extracted in their backyards, […]

Supes Find Compromise in West SoMa Plan’s Housing/Transit Tussle

|
City supervisors have reached a compromise on a contentious measure in the zoning plan for the western South of Market District that would have diverted some developer impact fees away from transit and street improvements to fund affordable housing. By increasing the number of subsidized affordable apartments that residential building developers will be required to […]

Supervisor Wiener Calls Hearings to Assess the Cost of Muni Delays

|
Just how bad is Muni? And is it getting any better? Supervisor Scott Wiener has called for monthly reports from the SF Municipal Transportation Agency and the City Controller’s Office to tally up the true cost of transit delays and track progress on Muni’s reliability. The regular reports to the Land Use and Economic Development Committee would […]

Bikeway on Mission Street Would Cost More Than One on Market

|
Constructing raised, protected bike lanes on downtown Mission Street would cost more than building them on Market, according to SF Municipal Transportation Agency Director Ed Reiskin. The Mission bikeway proposal, which recently surfaced as an option to be studied in the repeatedly-delayed Better Market Street project, would entail abandoning long-sought bike safety improvements on Market, which is […]

This Week: Fell and Oak Bikeway Designs Unveiled

|
This Saturday, the SFMTA unveils proposed designs for the Fell and Oak bikeways — be sure to stop by and show your support to ensure a well-designed and efficiently-delivered project. Also, TransForm hosts a talk with Dr. Manuel Pastor, “one of the leading minds on regional planning,” and the SFPD and the SFBC host a workshop […]