Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    Bryan Deng

    After that service is final, the 55 line will be defunct, and the 22 and 33 lines will be probably renamed “22-Fillmore/16th Street” and “33-Stanyan/16th Street” respectively.

  2.  

    danbrotherston

    Lol “fortunately he managed to see that one”. We had a dump truck with the bucket raised run into a major bridge in Ontario. It was a traffic disaster. Some people just shouldn’t be allowed to drive motor vehicles.

  3.  

    Jamison Wieser

    I didn’t say anything about the politic viability of closing West Portal, just presenting some context and history to consider.

    Closing the center lanes along a few blocks of West Portal (but still preserving travel lanes and parking) is a much smaller ask than much of what @disqus_Xl8crfDjuj:disqus has proposed.

  4.  

    Joel

    “Simply closing West Portal to traffic would eliminate significant costs in rebuilding West Portal Station.”

    If you think that making West Portal transit-only (even just the center lanes) is politically viable, I want whatever you’re smoking.

  5.  

    avantard

    Flashing lights and/or draw-gates (like you see at the entrances to parking garages? trains usually paus before entering and exiting tunnels anyway, so what’s an extra few seconds while a gate lifts?

  6.  

    Jamison Wieser

    You needn’t run the 19th Avenue subway the entire way to West Portal Station, only across St. Francis Circle to West Portal. Redesigning West Portal Avenue with a dedicated transit way (and eliminate the stop at West Portal & 14th Ave) saves the need to make more significant changes to West Portal Station itself.

    In one of these maps I’m showing the re-routing of the M-Ocean View through Parkmerced recommended for further development along with the dedicated transitway planned for the L-Taraval.

    That transportation study (and there isn’t a no-build scenario, something has to be done) recommended staring the subway between St. Francis Circle, running through Stonestown, SF State, with two stations in Parkmerced, before emerging into a rail/pedestrian/bike bridge over Junipero Serra. The M-Ocean View shoreline would turn back using the spur just after Font.

    That next-step study is funded and getting prepared to kick off. Some things worth noting about this is this design is the community preference and supported by the Stonestown and Parkmerced developers. They’re contributing their land and paying their share because they both have a financial investment in a direct, rapid connection downtown.

    That 19th Avenue transportation study further recommended looking to placing the tunnel portals on West Portal, before the M and K part ways turning St. Francis Circle into a subway station. At that point there are only two blocks on the surface before West Portal Station. Simply closing them to traffic would eliminate significant costs in rebuilding West Portal Station.

    In the second map I’ve shown what that might look like, again combined with the Transit Effectiveness Project plan.

    (please ignore the second posting)

  7.  

    Guest

    You needn’t run the 19th Avenue subway the entire way to West Portal Station, only across St. Francis Circle to West Portal. Redesigning West Portal Avenue with a dedicated transit way (and eliminate the stop at West Portal & 14th Ave) saves the need to redesign West Portal Station.

    In one of these maps I’m showing the re-routing of the M-Ocean View through Parkmerced recommended for further development along with the dedicated transitway planned for the L-Taraval.

    That transportation study (and there isn’t a no-build scenario, something has to be done) recommended staring the subway between St. Francis Circle, running through Stonestown, SF State, with two stations in Parkmerced, before emerging into a rail/pedestrian/bike bridge over Junipero Serra. The M-Ocean View shoreline would turn back using the spur just after Font.

    That next-step study is funded and getting prepared to kick off. Some things worth noting about this is this design is the community preference and supported by the Stonestown and Parkmerced developers. They’re contributing their land and paying their share because they both have a financial investment in a direct, rapid connection downtown.

    That 19th Avenue transportation study further recommended looking to placing the tunnel portals on West Portal, before the M and K part ways turning St. Francis Circle into a subway station. At that point there are only two blocks on the surface before West Portal Station. Simply closing them to traffic would eliminate significant costs in rebuilding West Portal Station.

    In the second map I’ve shown what that might look like, again combined with the TEP plan.

  8.  

    Gezellig

    Again, no one’s saying remove all parking. The original point of this discussion was:

    1) pointing out how prioritizing endless park-and-ride strategies is ultimately a losing game and that BART priorities and resources are better directed elsewhere (as you point out, better station access via things like BRT may indeed be such examples of this depending on context).

    and

    2) at the very least, $2-3 day is in fact extraordinarily cheap and does not cover its actual costs, so it’s far from surplus profits going down some black hole. $3/day represents a money-loser for BART (unlike surge pricing for Uber) and even $8 would only be break-even for what is a luxurious amenity that disproportionately benefits a minority percentage of BART users yet also one disproportionately of means.

  9.  

    SF Guest

    I have no idea how long it may have scaled.

  10.  

    Sean Hughes

    I’ve always thought they should extend the tunnel a couple blocks and under Duboce park, that would shave 5 minutes off travel time, and avoid collisions and cars entering the tunnel, as well as creating some nice park space behind Safeway.

  11.  

    Andy Chow

    On the other hand they also contribute more tax dollars as well as political support for the system. If somehow there’s no parking for BART, what do you suppose these folks to? relocate? drive all the way? or take a bus? These folks earned enough not have to rely on the bus and would rather drive all the way. They have a classist and sometimes racist mentality that translates to closer transit equals more crime and lower property values. They want transit to be close enough to drive to, but not close enough to walk.

    Having park and ride is a small price compared to not having transit for everyone due to lack of political support and a perception that transit is meant for those who use it as a life line.

    Rather than something like BART where each station needs either a far higher density development or large park and ride to build a larger ridership base, I prefer smaller scaled high speed transit like BRT where for the same price you can have more of them and closer to more folks, so the stations can be better scaled for the suburbs and do not need as large a park and ride.

  12.  

    Gezellig

    As for the equity aspect, an important thing to remember is that for the most part park-and-ride is a regressive, inegalitarian policy to prioritize above others. No one’s saying remove all parking, but there’s no doubt that overall park-and-ride disproportionately benefits and subsidizes people of higher-than-average income. Especially in the East Bay a general pattern is that the highest-income zipcodes are not the ones clustered around BART stations:

    http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/11/BayAreaSuperZips.jpg
    (income by zipcode. Yellow = highest-income)

    For the most part, corridors such as the San Ramon Valley are higher-than-average in income and lower-than-average in density. Many more of the people who live there have specifically chosen to live this lifestyle than those who have specifically chosen, say, to live in West Oakland or Fruitvale or Richmond. It is both a lose in terms of economy-of-scale for BART to try to serve all of them with regressive policies of endless (and expensive-to-BART) parking and also directly inegalitarian to promote park-and-ride for everyone who might want it.

    It costs BART way too much for way too little benefit, while also deprioritizing those in lower-income, denser areas.

    “Some see transit agencies should have the duty to counter market pressure by holding off fare and parking increases even when things like rent and gas prices are rising. Those folks certainly don’t want transit to have pricing strategies like the airlines or even Uber.”

    The main difference with this comparison, though, is that Uber makes huge profit margins on its surge pricing (which, in addition to being a for-profit move in a for-profit company, it also claims is to allow for greater supply…another way in which the comparison to BART breaks down) whereas even, say, an $8 “surge price” for BART parking wouldn’t be profit for BART, but simply *covering its actual costs* for what is a very expensive amenity that overwhelmingly benefits people with the means to pay for it yet is overwhelmingly subsidized by everyone else. That’s pretty much the definition of regressive and inequitable, and it doesn’t even attract that many riders when you compare systemwide (see file further down below).

    “Compare to the Metrorail system in DC, they both have about the same system mileage but the DC system have almost twice the ridership. They are all relatively modern system built around the same time but the DC system is more urban focused and BART is suburb focused”

    Yes, and DC Metro has done a much better job with infill stations and transit-adjacent development as opposed to the failing infrequent-station + park-and-ride model BART has pursued for decades.

    “If BART doesn’t the parking, it wouldn’t have as much ridership and more importantly political support from the suburbs for the system.”

    I don’t think anyone’s suggesting removing all parking from BART. Remember, I was pointing out the regressive nature of parking policy and the losing-sum game of pursuing endlessly more park-and-ride options for BART. At the very least, I was pointing out how increases from $2 to $3 still constitute a fantastic discount for drivers compared to 1) true cost to BART and 2) true cost compared to driving all the way (see murphstahoe’s comments about driving vs. BARTing to Montgomery, for example).

    There are way more egalitarian and efficient ways for BART to prioritize its spending.

    Remember, if you look at that daily rider exits by station, the bulk of BART riders are not coming from places with the cheapest and most plentiful parking. For example, North Concord/Martinez station has a huge sprawling parking lot in a mostly middle-and-above-income area and it has one of the lowest ridership rates of all BART stations. The BART system doesn’t thrive off of the North Concord/Martinez and Castro Valley stations of this world, despite their park-and-ride amenities:

    http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/FY%20Avg%20Wkdy%20Exits%20by%20Station_1.xlsx

    The stations approaching 10k and above per day are precisely the ones which also have some of the lowest percentages of park-and-ride users.

  13.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Let’s not over-think this people. Simple Solution.

  14.  

    Bob Gunderson

    You called?

  15.  

    davistrain

    Police officers can arrest a suspect, but revoking his or her license is the responsibility of the DMV and the court system.

  16.  

    murphstahoe

    Plenty of people were able to manage option 3 for a short time during a BART strike. Do you believe it scales to decades?

  17.  

    thielges

    It is nice to see that the San Carlos TOD project is finally cleared but too bad they had to reduce the height to appease NIMBYs.

  18.  

    SF Guest

    A perfect example of what you describe is the San Ramon/Danville corridor.

  19.  

    Andy Chow

    Is the color coding somehow adopted as official? and used elsewhere other than maps? I compared the map you posted and the regular Muni system map and made some evaluations.

    - Regular Muni map has highlight for major transit corridor, and slightly bolder line with black border (very hard to see) for some routes. There’s no explanation found for the slightly bolder bus line.

    - The map you presented above use a different color for “rapid” line (which doesn’t exist) with a color similar to rail. I think that bus and rail should be different. I use yellow dashes to designate limited routes in segments where they actually skip stop. Most of the limited routes have segments where they make local stops.

    - So I decided that lines according to TEP to be primary corridors should have a bolder line, along with routes that shared most alignments with those lines but not designated as such (like 6, 45).

    - All peak hour routes should be designated differently regardless of local or express.

  20.  

    SF Guest

    There are three additional options (which were used at the last BART strike):
    3) flex time or telecommute;
    4) carpool and ride the HOV lane;
    5) ride public transit buses

  21.  

    yugioh_mishima

    Please tell me the police at least arrested him and revoked his license for drunk driving…

  22.  

    Joel

    It’s a little bit excessive, but here’s an interesting solution from Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoTMC-uxJoo

  23.  

    Tony

    Yeah, well, that’s good but how about improving the existing service as well? Lately I’ve had more than the usual problems with MUNI. Rude drivers (shut the door in my face when he saw I was hurrying to board and he hadn’t started up yet), buses never showing up so people have to try to find alternatives, the other day the driver missed my stop even though I pushed the button in plenty of time, overcrowdedness – people stuck in the middle can’t get to the door in time…

  24.  

    Akit

    Retractable bollards is the answer. They use them in Europe to only allow buses to enter certain streets, but keeps the other unauthorized vehicles out:
    http://youtu.be/AKVBK-0veE8

  25.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Keeping the 22 in tact and adding a second line makes a lot more sense than what I heard SFMTA was planning.

    It won’t happen for a few years, but the plan approved last year still re-routes the 22-Fillmore into Mission Bay and extends the 33-Stanyan into Dog Patch.

    The full completion of that project depends on new overhead wire, but since that couldn’t be completed in time for the opening of the new Mission Bay hospital it wasn’t include in the two-year implementation of priority-projects (including the busway itself and the two design options SFMTA is ) approved by the Board of Supervisors with the SFMTA budget.

    Here is the map showing the final service plan for the 33 and 22. The SFMTA is saying five years for that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Warriors Arena speeds that up.

  26.  

    Thomas Rogers

    I’m surprised @Bob_Gunderson hasn’t weighed in, *demanding* that cars have the right to use the Muni tunnels. Hi-rail vehicles for all! :)

  27.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Have you thought about going ahead and using the new color coding?

  28.  

    Upright Biker

    I suggest mechanical bollards on a system like a bascule bridge, where a counterweight would retract them by default unless kept up by a switch. That way, should the switch fail, the bollards would go down instead of getting stuck in place and hold up the train.

  29.  

    sebra leaves

    Those who live in the area will want to let the city officials know how they feel about the plan. Supervisors Wiener, Campos and Cohen should be contacted as the line crosses three districts. These maps do not look like the last version I saw, but I have seen so many, I could be mistaken. Keeping the 22 in tact and adding a second line makes a lot more sense than what I heard SFMTA was planning.

  30.  

    Andy Chow

    The thing is that BART also wants customers that are beyond walking distance. Compare to the Metrorail system in DC, they both have about the same system mileage but the DC system have almost twice the ridership. They are all relatively modern system built around the same time but the DC system is more urban focused and BART is suburb focused. If BART doesn’t the parking, it wouldn’t have as much ridership and more importantly political support from the suburbs for the system.
    For some public service, if the standard is that everyone in the area should be served then everyone is served regardless of their distance to the main facility. Post office provides at the door delivery to everyone not just those that are a few miles from the main post office. Many schools also run school buses to take students living further away from school. Is it a special subsidy compared to kids living close enough to walk? Yes, but it fulfills the mission of the school as supposed to not requiring those who live away from school to attend school due to lack of transportation.

    Transit is a special case because it otherwise behaves like a private business to compete for customers. On the other hand, because of tax funding and public ownership, there’s equity aspect especially when it comes to fares and things like parking fees. Some see transit agencies should have the duty to counter market pressure by holding off fare and parking increases even when things like rent and gas prices are rising. Those folks certainly don’t want transit to have pricing strategies like the airlines or even Uber.

  31.  

    crazyvag

    BART is suing protesters for holding up trains. Why can’t passengers sue the driver for delays?

  32.  

    murphstahoe

    Doesn’t stop anyone from driving around them on the Caltrain line….

  33.  

    Jass

    The Boston bus tunnel has standard parking gates, but theres also large concrete gates that swing into place if the system detects a non transit vehicle going down the ramp

    You can see the gates here
    http://goo.gl/maps/cvGSz

    And a video showing an SUV being stopped from entering by the emergency system
    http://www.mbta.com/videos/MBTA_Security_Gates.wmv

  34.  

    Sean Rea

    The car entered the tunnel from the Duboce Park entrance, heading west towards Cole Valley.

  35.  

    Jeffrey Baker

    Jeez, they hardly even need to remove any parking to do that. Just a slice of the useless decorative planted area of the parking lot would be plenty of space for a butt-kickin’ bike station.

  36.  

    tungwaiyip

    Can we simply add a swing gate that opens for Muni only? Shouldn’t be anything high tech.

    The article does not say which way the car enter the tunnel. Does this problem happens on one side only or both sides?

    As for punishment, I think police should provide the mugshot and the name of the perpetrator to the media.

  37.  

    MrEricSir

    What about a standard automatic crossing guard?

  38.  

    thielges

    “It’s incredible how one errant driver can disrupt the trips of thousands of Muni riders…”

    To be fair a single errant driver can also shutdown a freeway as well so this isn’t just cars vs. transit. It is cars vs. everyone.

    To put a positive spin on this asymmetric situation, transit rarely ever delays mass-automotive (i.e. freeway) traffic. And even when it does it isn’t a single person vs. the masses, it is a whole busload.

  39.  

    Gezellig

    “Remember that BART collects tax dollars from everybody, including those who live outside of BART walking distance, so I don’t think it is wrong for BART to have parking to accommodate the suburbs.”

    The logical kernel of your statement is that people who live further from an amenity deserve special subsidies and accommodations–that’s actually maybe not *always* a bad idea (depending on context and ability–for example the importance of paratransit services for those of less ability) though do note how exceedingly rare it is that this happens with things funded by general tax dollars.

    As someone who lives in SF and grew up in various parts of California I’ve never lived remotely close to the Library of Congress but my tax dollars go towards it just the same as someone who lives a block away from it in DC. I don’t receive subsidized lower-than-market transportation incentives to make up for the fact that I’m so far away. My life situation and the choices I’ve made place me where I am and that’s that.

    Another example…Greater Fresno is the largest metropolitan area (over 1 million residents) in the entire US to not have an Interstate Highway, yet Fresnans’ tax dollars go the Interstate Highway System just as do everyone else’s. The examples of this kind of thing are endless.

    In any case, I actually wasn’t arguing against all parking in all locations, simply pointing out how ludicrous it is to claim that $2.50 is “going nowhere” when in fact it’s a fantastic discount. Btw, see murphstahoe’s many great comments below about demand and overall value of BART and what we most benefit from in terms of what we subsidize.

    In the end, if a BART parking lot is consistently full by 6:45a (as many are), BART is absolutely charging less than they should be for parking–*especially* since the true cost of parking is much higher than anything they’re already charging anyway.

  40.  

    94110

    That’s a pretty impressive list of (minor) changes. Mission is getting corners daylighted at 18th, 19th and 23rd with a painted bulbout at on 18th in front of Duc Loi.

  41.  

    murphstahoe

    Your statement implies that no value accrues to people who don’t take BART at all. This is patently false. Were there no BART, one of the following two things would have to be true.

    1) Fewer people commute to jobs, reducing overall economic growth to the detriment of everyone.
    2) Massive roadway expansion to attempt to accommodate the 400,000 daily BART commuters. A lot more expensive than running BART.

  42.  

    murphstahoe

    It would be interesting to test just from an academic standpoint. If someone did a “fair” economic analysis – let’s say for the sake of comparison our rider is coming from Walnut Creek to Montgomery.

    BART fare is $10.20 RT, so the rider is out $17.85 all in.

    Driving involves a $5 toll. It’s 50 miles roundtrip, let’s call it 2 gallons of gas, at today’s prices roughly $5.50. The car has to be parked – I have no clue how much that costs near Montgomery but I’m fairly certain it’s more than our remaining $7.35. At best it’s a financial wash – before we consider putting 50 miles per day on a motor vehicle and the depreciation that involves (at least 2 extra oil changes per year to start with).

    There is no question that overall it would be more expensive to drive, but people always undercount depreciation/amortization of vehicle costs, and they attach a stigma to paying for parking that it feels like it counts double :)

    Timewise, traffic congestion dominates the primary route and would be slower than BART. The last mile issue is nebulous – depends on how close BART is to work and how close parking is to work. Driving is far less reliable – there are days (Giants games, Critical Mass :) for example) where the commute can be a bear.

    In the end, this is not relevant. There is nominal value in providing some parking, and I don’t see value in tearing down the exurban lots (I would not build more but the existing ones have sunk costs). The appropriate move is to float parking costs to achieve 95% occupancy.

    As a side note, the stations along the Colma to Millbrae lines are full – because BART decided that since they were so empty that they should go into the airport park and ride business. And BART charges less than half of the nearest competitor!

  43.  

    Andy Chow

    Remember that BART collects tax dollars from everybody, including those who live outside of BART walking distance, so I don’t think it is wrong for BART to have parking to accommodate the suburbs. As a high capacity, higher speed linear rail system, BART needs more riders in the East Bay than what there’s within walking distance. Some riders may opt using feeder buses, but that is also an expensive proposition and not necessarily effective (the extra cost and time expense made bus+BART trip not attractive compared to driving directly even with traffic).

    Ideally there should be more of those medium capacity high speed transit (like BRT) so that more areas have direct transit coverage within walking distance.

  44.  

    murphstahoe

    We should make decisions based on what value we get from implementing a subsidy. We get more value from subsidizing BART trains than we do BART parking lots. We might even get more overall value by selling the parking lot in a place like Rockridge. Even if BART lost some ridership at Rockridge due to the lost parking, the value from no longer subsisidizing that parking and the money raised by selling the land might produce more ridership systemwide or at the least make riding more pleasant for remaining riders.

    And I definitely know some people who drive to Rockridge who would find another way to the station if the lot wasn’t there. It’s a 10 minute walk from their house, and a 2 minute bike ride – of course rush hour trains are difficult to take a bike with, and bike security in Rockridge is dodgy. Hmm… if they sold the parking lot they could probably afford to build and staff some pretty kick butt bike valet right there….

  45.  

    Andy Chow

    New for this year is an interactive Muni map that I spent a couple of weeks to produce. I want some kind of mobile friendly interactive map for the web site but with limited choices it is better for me to create one. It is displayed on Google’s API so you can switch to other standard Google layers and even have street views. It is also designed to be printed as well. It includes some of the most recent changes like the 5L, two way Haight St and left turn for 29.

    Feel free to provide any feedback.

    http://www.transitunlimited.org/Map:Muni

    http://apps.transitunlimited.org/sftmap/v4a/15/5241/12664.png

    http://apps.transitunlimited.org/sftmap/v4a/16/10484/25324.png

    http://apps.transitunlimited.org/sftmap/v4a/12/654/1583.png

  46.  

    thielges

    Yes, I realize the NYE attraction. But making the trains free starting at 8pm put a major crunch on train #195 because people like a good deal and “free” is about the best deal possible. Remove the free incentive and ridership would still be higher than normal but not nearly the extreme that happened on NB #195.

    Providing free transit on NYE is a great way to encourage drunks to stay out of the driver’s seat. One hopes that when revelers got back to their home station that they left their car in the lot overnight and took a taxi home.

    BTW, when boarding #195 at Tamien I noticed 3 other trainsets staged and ready to go northbound. Normally there’s at most one extra transet at Tamien that time of the evening. Maybe Caltrain did provide extra NB runs at the 8-9ish timeframe. I could find info on when the extra post-midnight southbound runs departed (12:35, 1:15, 1:45, and 2:15am) but nothing about any corresponding NB runs. Does anyone know?

  47.  

    Gezellig

    Well, SF only has one station with a lot (a tiny one at that), Glen Park.

    As for East Bay lots, there are many many different East Bays. MacArthur =/= Castro Valley. See my comment to that above.

  48.  

    Andy Chow

    I believe that those people who are pushing free Muni for kids and seniors would also support free Muni for everyone, but it is harder to approve politically as the funding gap is bigger.

  49.  

    Gezellig

    “maybe if we made it easier for these people to live closer to the transit station that would be a worthy goal.”

    One of the ways to do that is to build as much new housing within the walkshed of stations as possible. So, not doing this:

    http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bart1.png

    or this:

    http://www.parkingcarma.com/images/Site/3c319929-d25b-dc11-8064-0013723eb578.JPG

    One of the worst ways is to surround a station with acres and acres of parking and the 8-lane arterials it begets, further pushing back the nearest available spots for housing, further eliminating walking as an option for that many more people, etc.

    It’s a vicious cycle that never gets fixed by building more and more parking.

    “To be fair everything that has an operating cost covered by tax revenues is subsidized.”

    Sure, but my point is that it’s extra egregious in light of someone who parks and pays $2.50/day to think they’re being overcharged or that the money’s “going nowhere.”

  50.  

    Gezellig

    Yup, and those 8-lane roads have ways of begetting more 8-lane roads (see my comment below). It’s a chicken-egg problem and history proves you can’t continuously pave your way out of congestion.

    Moreover, as Murphstahoe points out, if a lot’s full it’s full, period. When the parking lot at Fremont fills up every day it’s attracting the same number of BART trips via park-and-ride whether it charges $2.50 or $8. It’s just one of those figures actually covers the actual cost of parking to the system.