Skip to content

Recent Comments

RSS
  1.  

    jonobate

    Extending the N to 16th/Mission would be nice, but it would require a TBM rather than cut-and-cover. I guess you could launch the TBM in the triangular block where Safeway is (which could then be redeveloped), and extract in the area where I-280 touches down near 5th/King. Maybe with stations at Church/Duboce, 16th/Mission, 16th/Bryant, Showplace Square, 4th/King. A BART connection for N riders would certainly sweeten the pill of having to transfer to get downtown, and it would make it much easier to get from the Mission to Caltrain.

    All fantasy at this point, of course, but it’s good to see people engaged in improving Muni rather than just complaining about it.

  2.  

    Thomas

    Yes, I’m looking forward to see what they come up with for the bus network. I agree, the 19th str subway should be in there, extended to West Portal. But even with the track layout as-is, there’s an immediate benefit: you can increase the frequency of every line, because you’re not constrained by the shared tracks under market. As for the N extension, I think we should prioritize connections, and thus serve 16th & Mission BART.

  3.  

    jonobate

    That’s a pretty neat concept. You’d have to combine steps 1 and 2, I think – forcing N and J riders to transfer at Church without the benefit of upgrading the routes with new subway stations would be a hard sell. Also the subway extension of the M to Parkmerced should be much higher priority, as there is a huge ridership heading to SFSU that would be inconvenienced by a forced transfer at West Portal.

    The website is not clear on what route the N would take – it says Duboce in the text, but also shows a connection to BART at 16th/Mission on the map. Personally I would love to see a Duboce/Division route, combined with removal of the Central Freeway. The N could run in dedicated lanes on the surface of Division, then go back underground at 10th/Potrero, stop at a subway station under Showplace Square, then re-emerge the other side of the Caltrain line and connect to the existing track at 5th & King. Pretty neat!

  4.  

    Jamison Wieser

    Even in the original CAHSR rendering, trying to make it cheerful with the rose bed in front of the train, added greenery, and decorative fences, they still had the bike lane in shadow.

  5.  

    Dark Soul

    55-16th Street next one will be 58-24th street ?? (Didn’t the 53 – Southern Heights serve parts of 16th street? (How many is going just goto there test the new route out?

  6.  

    jonobate

    Well, this is precisely the reason why the SF planning department wants to remove the last mile of I-280 and send the Caltrain/HSR tracks under 16th St rather than vice versa. This would eliminate the wire issue without creating a horrible sunken underpass.

  7.  

    roymeo

    Wow. I wonder what aggregate they’re adding to the street concrete in order to get it so cheerful and lively…crushed abalone shells, pearls, or unicorn horn? Based on the hairball underpass, I think a realistic view requires several applications of a negative brightness filter. (2 minute edit version)

  8.  

    DragonflyBeach

    I see. That’s fine I suppose but it only solves the Market street subway station crowding issue, and of course, doesn’t directly impact that worst problem of them all: N-Judah.
    There are of course problems with this West Portal S proposal, turnbacks at West Portal seem to be difficult for Muni (usually because crowding and incidents that back-up Muni are at West Portal.) The best option would be a Castro crossover but Muni doesn’t seem interested in using it, even though they built it specifically for the Bredas.
    My point is simply that 3-car N-Judah’s to Sunset Ave., and frequent 2-car M’s and L’s will solve the problem, rather than having trains stuck only at 1/2-cars cluttered in the tunnel, waiting for the next train to leave. And again, as a Castro station user, having the Market street subway is great for fast trips and quick alleviation, but for the majority of riders that use Muni Metro as a bus-route rather than subway, double-berthing doesn’t mean much. Having a lot of people on the platform, but at least being able to get everyone in one go without waiting for the next train or back-tracking a station, is more important than loading passages at the same time with small trains that can’t catch all the crowds and truly alleviate them.

    Also, the primary reason for delays on Muni is traffic issues, outside non-subway boarding, and equipment failure. Loading up at Castro doesn’t impair Muni from what I’ve seen, and the incident reports. There’s hardly any trains at Castro to begin with. Everytime delays are about its at West Portal, or it’s an inbound outside-subway cluster issue.

  9.  

    Kevin Smith

    Do all freeways have similar signs?

  10.  

    Kevin Smith

    Note to p-chaz… everyone dies

  11.  

    Thomas

    Caltrain will be electrified way before CAHSR starts operating. Caltrain is on track for a 2019 electrification, i.e. same schedule as the overhead wire for the 22 Fillmore extension.

  12.  

    Thomas

    Yes! Have you seen this proposal for reorganizing SF rail network? http://newmunimetro.com/ The N Judah could, and should, go to Mission Bay and 4th & King by 16th.

  13.  

    David Marcus

    What about extending the N-Judah up 16th St? It’s pointed right at it and would better connect the Mission with Soma.

  14.  

    Jamison Wieser

    “Empty trains may be fun but they’re wasteful if small amounts of people are riding them, rather than simply getting everyone the first time around in one train.”

    I don’t think you caught my meaning. Shuttle trains do not remain empty because a large number of passengers heading downtown board at West Portal, Forest Hill, Castro, Church, and Van Ness.

    By having shuttle trains alleviate some of the tunnel crowding, it means less delays caused by the hundreds of passengers at Castro all trying to cram onto trains KLM trains that are already full. In the outbound direction, shuttle trains pick up passengers only going as far as West Portal making more room on the KLMNJ for passengers who can only get there by that specific line.

  15.  

    FDW

    No, the 55 will use Diesel buses because there currently isn’t overhead wires on 16th St east of Kansas St. Once overhead wires are installed, the plan is for the 22 to absorb the 55, and for the 33 to be rerouted serve the existing 22 route east of 16th/Kansas.

  16.  

    Jamison Wieser

    In the short run there’s no Caltrain overhead to contend with, Muni only has to make sure it’s above the Caltrain trains.

    When Caltrain does electrify and CAHSR gets started trains will be going by so often 16th street will be closed (and Mission Bay Boulevard) will be closed and converted into underpasses. Complete with blind, sunken intersections at 7th.

    Because this will still be the bike route in and out of Mission Bay you can see the bike lane in the rendering, almost completely hidden in the shadow, but you can see how this eliminates overhead wire conflicts with Caltrain.

  17.  

    ipso_facto123

    Could also make sense for it to extend up 16th to Castro? Would use existing F-Market route up to 17th & Castro. Then Castro is more directly connected to Mission Bay and Caltrain…wonder if quicker than T-Third.

  18.  

    hp2ena

    That’s what I thought. The argument may be that Potrero Hill already have a Caltrain connection via the 10 and the T, but people are forgetting the Mission area. It’s frustrating to be on a Caltrain that only stops at 4th and King and that it takes too long to meander from 4th/King to 16th/Mission. Maybe people in support could push the MTA Board on that?

  19.  

    Dexter Wong

    There could be a problem with the 55 line crossing the Caltrain tracks at grade if the line is electrified (especially after CAHSR gets started).

  20.  

    Mike Fogel

    Wouldn’t it make more sense for this line to terminate at 4th and King?

  21.  

    bagpuss

    will the 55 be all electric busses ?

  22.  

    hp2ena

    Protestors who shut down BART on Black Friday fight attempts by agency to extort $70k from protestors because agency wants to cover up for poor decisions made in the past: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/01/02/arrested-black-friday-protesters-say-bart-wants-70000-in-restitution-for-shutdown-call-it-ransom/

  23.  

    rickbynight

    Agreed. While this does make quite a bit of sense in a historical context, it’s not always clear to those not deeply entrenched in the workings of our transit agency. :)

  24.  

    stevenj

    Another mistake: the 35 terminal at Castro St station is not darkened as are all the other terminal designations are on all the other lines. The 35 also runs as a loop thru the Castro which is not shown with correct directional arrows and they have it running on 19th St when it actually runs westbound only on 20th St to Eureka.

  25.  

    stevenj

    Historically L has always meant limited, meaning that a limited stop bus stops only where another line crosses. The vast majority of the bus/streetcar lines in SF are locals. So the L designation (as well as X for expresses) are reserved for the lines that will give you an allegedly quicker ride.

  26.  

    stevenj

    Forget Willie Brown. It’s the SF Oakland Bay Bridge or just simply the Bay Bridge.

  27.  

    p_chazz

    Whether a person lays down on a railroad track, in a driveway or in the fast lane on the freeway, that person is using the space in a manner inconsistent with its intended use, consequently assuming all risk for any misfortune that might happen. The building owners and the drivers who enter and exit from the garage are not obligated to make any change in their behavior as a result of the inconsistent use of the driveway. Any act that they choose to make to safeguard the well being of the homeless is a charitable act that goes above and beyond what is required of them.

  28.  

    NoeValleyJim

    Wealthy car drivers are entitled to run over as many poor people as they like.

  29.  

    NoeValleyJim

    We could have a bicycle signal for the bike lane and a car signal for cars. Each can go at a different time.

  30.  

    Anthony R

    But you don’t think it is anyway incumbent upon drivers or owners of the building to take steps to ensure people aren’t killed in the public space of the sidewalk as they pass through it even after 2 people have been killed under identical circumstances there. Have I in any way misrepresented your view?

  31.  

    Folicle

    It may be a line of sight issue rather than an illumination issue. If the exit changes grade as you leave, it may be impossible to see someone or something on the ground immediately ahead.

  32.  

    p_chazz

    I don’t want to see anyone die. I just think that people, homeless people included, need to take a reasonable precaution to insure their safety, which includes not sleeping in driveways.

  33.  

    Anthony R

    Is there any instance in which you could envision a driver being at fault for killing a homeless person through the operation of their motor vehicle? If this does not make “the homeless get the message” how many more would you like to see die for that to happen. 3? 4? How many is too many or can you not even imagine a number too high?

  34.  

    mike

    Noe valley – You are a complete idiot for defending those filthy loser protesters in Minneapolis when that car drove through them. Those pathetic losers on the street are holding people hostage who are driving to work and driving home. And you are defending those scumbags in the street who have nothing better to do with their lives but stand in the middle of the street and protesting a thug loser like Michael Brown? LOL people like you are so stupid. I pray that these losers get in front of my car and hold me up in one of their loser protests. Would be pure satisfaction to run over 2 or 3 of these complete trash losers.

  35.  

    Richard Mlynarik

    5tph terminating and reversing can easily be accommodated at 2 platform faces, 3 at a stretch. Even locally (ignoring real, reliable, intensively-used regional rail and metros outside the USA) BART turns 8tph on two platform faces at Fremont and has for decades.

    A 12 track terminal in SF for any passenger rail service is fundamentally wasteful and always has been.

    Storing out of service trains on CBD real estate is crazy. Just having most of your fleet out of service nearly all the time is even more insane. Why would anybody do something so stupid, paying so much to deliver so very little service?

    But that’s what you get when you have America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals replicating 19th century Olde Tyme Commuter Railroading (the only sort they know or want to hear anything about) forever, with an unlimited budget.

    Transbay ought to have been and could have been, except for the idiocy of America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals, 8 platform faces (see p24), but we’re stuck fewer than with 6, and because of the quite literally insane way they’re configured, effectively with the trains and passenger throughput of 3 or 4 remotely competently designed, remotely first world passenger rail platforms.

    Mission Bay, a through station on the way to Transbay, can’t possibly ever justify more than three or four platform faces, and those solely for operational jiggery sorting out trains approaching the crazy scandalously misdesigned Transbay terminal station.

    12 platform tracks at Mission Bay isn’t needed today, wasn’t needed 50 years ago, won’t be needed 100 years from now (when then site will be underwater anyway.) There are infinitely better things to do with the Towsend/King/Fourth/Seventh blocks of real estate than to park wastefully idle dinosaur “commuter railroad” cash pits on it.

  36.  

    crazyvag

    Correction. 5 trains per hour PER direction, so 10 train movements per hour across 12 tracks doesn’t seem fundamentally wasteful when in future we’ll see 12 trains per hour. I do agree that this building should be multi-level.

  37.  

    p_chazz

    Yes, you did. I critiqued CAHSR and you changed the subject to critique Elon Musk’s Hyperloop proposal. Classic tu quoque if ever I saw one. Now you are hair-splitting to try and wiggle out of it.

  38.  

    Crusselsprouts

    I agree to a point. This particular driveway apparently needs a physical intervention to communicate to the homeless/would-be dwellers that this is no a good place to sleep. I don’t know what that might look, but perhaps this building–by virtue of its location–needs a proactive design intervention.

    In good conscious, I can’t direct guilt toward the building owner. Of all the design considerations, is this an expected interaction that architects consider? This is an unreasonable expectation for a driver [that someone is just sleeping there].

  39.  

    jonobate

    Not at all. I didn’t “answer criticism with criticism” because you didn’t actually criticise anything I said. You said “CAHSR is a waste, by any measure”, but nowhere in my argument did I say that CAHSR is not a waste of money.

    Whether CAHSR is cost effective or not is irrelevant to my argument – what I’m saying is that there’s no way that Hyperloop could be *more* cost effective than CAHSR, unless Musk really has figured out a way to assemble concrete viaduct for $5mm/km, as his numbers imply. If that’s true, that’s a huge leap forward for civil engineering, but far more likely is that he’s lying.

  40.  

    p_chazz

    Your logical fallacy is tu quoque.

    You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism. Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

  41.  

    p_chazz

    A stiff dose of much needed reality

  42.  

    p_chazz

    Yes, but some projects are more reality-based than others. One should always be skeptical about business proposals that offer staggering returns far above the market. In the case of CAHSR, the projected boarding estimates were unrealistic and costs were underestimated. Cal Rail News reports “There’s no conceivable source for the $26 billion shortfall for a line just to get from Merced to the San Fernando Valley. Neither federal nor private investment is forthcoming. Cap-and-trade revenues cannot fill the gap, either, even if that proposal survives a legal challenge.”

    The whole thing is a scam to line consultants pockets and inflate property values in towns along the route. How else can you explain the 100+ mile detour to Palmdale? The route could have and should have taken the alignment that was recommended by the French high speed rail operator SCNF directly between LA and SF along the west side of the Central Valley . But no, instead we get stops and detours along the way, which make it highly unlikely that CAHSR will make the trip between LA and SF in 2 hours and 40 minutes as mandated by law.
    And I am no public transit hater. I don’t drive a car. I take BART, CalTrain and ride the Capitol Corridor at least once a month. I voted for the HSR bonds; a decision that I now bitterly regret.

  43.  

    PhillyPlanner

    have you considered moving?

  44.  

    CamBam415

    And one more article on the GG Transit considering changing their are requirements for fares (to require a paid youth ticket for 5 yr olds, previously free) to match the majority of Bay Area transit providers:

    http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_27197548/golden-gate-transit-5-year-olds-pay-up

    I like the idea of a more uniform fare schedule, but not sure how many 5 yr old GG Transit users are using clipper and crossing transit provider zones on a regular basis. Seems like GGT is trying to solve a theoretical problem, which has implications for low income local users.

  45.  

    CamBam415

    Here is an article on a crazy, road-raging driver near Auburn, CA:
    http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/12/23/road-raging-maniac-in-sierra-foothills-caught-on-video/

    Be safe this holiday season!

  46.  

    CamBam415

    To me the most interesting part of the article was on the open-source business model and harnessing passionate volunteers.

  47.  

    CamBam415

    @p_chazz:disqus You do understand that uncertainty is a part of life, right? No business is guaranteed anything, so “could” applies to any business venture/project that has ever existed and will ever exist. So arguing that “could” is the operative word is pointless as it applies to anything.

  48.  

    jonobate

    If CAHSR is a waste, then so is the Hyperloop, because the Hyperloop will cost more.

    Hey, if I’m wrong, some plucky entrepreneur will raise the capital to build the thing and start turning a handsome profit. Wanna bet on that happening?

  49.  

    Steve

    …and your naysaying is….?

  50.  

    SF Guest

    There’s never a guarantee for any solution involving human decisions. The CalTrans yard at Bryant/Beale has homeless sleeping there but not in front of the parking entrance with a similar sign.

    This cheap fix could go a long way, and it’s worth a try. At the very minimum it would serve to alert passersby this is a driveway. Based on google maps it may not be so obvious at night, but it is apparent it has an enclosure which could attract homeless stayovers. There are many more driveways with signs than ones without so the absence of such a sign can fool homeless into believing the area is safe to hang out.