Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Actually… TBC is–like Grand Central–designed as a terminal, not a station. There’s a building planned to the east which will take up the (underground) space needed for run through tracks on that side.

    The chance of any trains arriving or leaving from the east is very low. It’s almost like someone thought of every method of fixing this thing and ensured it was blocked.


    Jarrett M

    The employment center of SF is and will remain the financial district, which the transbay terminal is right next to. Some jobs will trickle down to SOMA and Mission Bay, but the financial district is the city’s overwhelming jobs concentration, which will be the true ridership generator- not stadiums or sports arenas. It needs to be served by regional transit both from the East Bay and the Peninsula/South Bay and Caltrain is the Peninsula’s regional transit link as the round-about BART connection through Millbrae has proven slow and ineffective to connecting Peninsula riders with the Market Street transit spine. HSR would be a nice addition to the TBT, but if it never reaches the city, the Caltrain link to the region’s densest job cluster is a worthy investment in its own right.



    If SF never gets Caltrain and HSR extended to the Transbay Transit Center, the underground train box can always be used by BART when/if it adds a second transbay tube. That line could go from the second tube, to the Transit Center, connect with an existing station on Market, then head west under Geary. Imagine living in the Outer Richmond and being able to get to downtown/SoMa/the TTC in 10-15 minutes rather than the current 45-60 minutes on a bus.


    Mission Mom



    We can use $1B of the 2.5B to pay off the Mayor. That should get it done.


    Jeffrey Baker

    I know you’re not that naive. The T-Third opened 9 years ago and still does not have signal priority at 4th & King. In fact it has the polar opposite of signal priority: it is guaranteed to sit there at the light through at least one full cycle. 4th will never, ever be closed to cars. The T cars will sit there at the light waiting and waiting and waiting, after having waited and waited at Berry St, and having waited and waited and waited more at Channel st. Today it takes a typical T-Third car 5 minutes to go 3 tenths of a mile through that area. If you are advocating spending this money to cut 10 minutes off the trip from Palo Alto, you are dooming everyone who arrives to either a 30 minute walk, or a 10 minute Muni ride with unpredictable headway.



    Yes, stations can be huge, but those long walks through labelled passageways are always going to be preferable to getting lost up on the streets on an equally long walk.

    I know what you mean about the stairs and baggage though. Lugging bags full of video gear up and down stairs in Japanese subway stations had me start wondering if they have any disabled people over there.



    There are some extremely long walks at London tube stations between different lines. Sometimes even outside, as with Hammersmith.

    Often those walks involve stairs and it is no fun carrying heavy bags up and down them. Moreover some tube stations only have elevators, not escalators, which is a bottleneck.

    In SF we have much more opportunity to do things right, from scratch. Although anyone transferring between CalTrain, Muni and BART would never know.



    The city took a lot of criticism for the very expensive Central Subway project which, ironically, links these two areas anyway. Can the city not be forgiven for not wanting to double down on an even more expensive duplicate route?

    Moreover the center of gravity of downtown has been moving south for a few decades now. The existing CalTrain station used to be seen as being out of the way but, increasingly, it is at the center of things.

    Given that I doubt HSR will ever happen, I think the money could be batter spent elsewhere.


    Mountain Viewer

    Might take a while for the TBT to become the tourist attraction that Notre Dame is….What’s the Field of Dreams saying “build it and they will come”?



    Heh, I was just there a couple days ago. It’s not hard to read and follow the signs, even in a large station like Châtelet where there are 8 lines to choose between.



    I don’t know about this. The article proposes spending a very large amount of money to save X amount of time to get from 4th/King to the Transbay Terminal. The same amount of money spent on the line between San Jose and San Francisco would save more time on the entire journey from San Jose to the final destination in SF than the DTX would – 2.5 billion dollars would really pimp out Caltrain.

    Most passengers arriving at the TBT will still have some sort of last mile solution to deal with anyway. Cutting 10 minutes off of the Palo Alto to SF run is more valuable.

    As much as I like the idea of the train running down there, I don’t think it’s the best ROI. Take 2.5 billion dollars, close 4th Street to all auto traffic, make the Central Subway on that portion pre-empt all traffic and run at 40 MPH. Move the connection station to directly in front of the Caltrain terminal on 4th between King and Townsend.



    Truth. Somehow Paris survives without a train station under Notre Dame, and with lines that don’t actually connect through.



    Yes, because Chatelet station is such a joy.



    Good thing you are riding a bike instead of driving a car, if you are that clumsy



    Point A and point B are fixed, and train tracks can’t curve very much. Not much variability in alignment could be possible.


    Chris J.

    I do this and only need to touch the lock itself. Not sure where all your grease is coming from.


    Chris J.

    There are so many things more convenient about bicycling. For drivers, there is all the time lost looking for parking; the cost of parking; the time to walk to and from your parking destination; the stress of worrying about whether you will get a ticket and making sure your car isn’t broken in to; the time and costs if / when you do get your car broken in to, get a ticket, or get your car towed; and all the other expenses that go with owning, storing, insuring, and maintaining a car, etc.

    As for bicycling, it’s often an enjoyable experience; you’re active so you don’t need to set aside as much time to exercise; and for shorter distances, yes it’s faster. Also, FWIW, I always lock my seat to my rear wheel and separately lock my front wheel and helmet, and I don’t get “grease on my hands.” I’ve also never worn a “hi-vis” outfit. Yes, you need to lock / unlock and affix / unaffix bike lights, etc. But those are things you can do in a few minutes without thinking once you get the hang of it. Just like with cars you have to lock / unlock your car doors, close your windows, check your mirrors, get gas, parallel park, check your headlights, check the inside of your car for exposed belongings, keep your car washed, check that your wheels are turned and close enough to the curb, etc.



    If you lock the seat tube with the rear tire together like I do, you will get grease on your hand.



    My awareness of and fidelity to our traffic laws rather clearly exceeds your own, since you — in the same breath — accuse me of not knowing the rules of the road, then ham-handedly acknowledge that San Francisco’s prohibition on sidewalk bicycling is anomalous.

    Keep plugging away.



    The explanation for city hall’s reluctance to fund the DTX should be obvious – they don’t like it, and don’t want to build it as currently designed. SF Planning is working on an alternative design, and as soon as that planning work is completed, you can be sure that Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors will start advocating for funding for the new alignment.


    Mountain Viewer

    Real Cities (London, Paris, etc..) built train stations …. where trains were already going not where they wished trains would be going…some day ….maybe.



    Real cities (London, Paris, etc.) don’t require people to exit stations and wander the streets to make their transfers. They have clearly labelled passageways connecting all the platforms underground.

    They’d better dig that corridor.





    They’ve talked about redeveloping the neighborhood around 4th & King … maybe they want to focus development efforts there. It’s still short-sighted though: Muni lines from there will have a fraction of the capacity of CAHSR and Caltrain.



    Spot-on about the disjointed planning, though in slight defense of the BART thing the Transbay Transit Center will only be a block from Embarcadero Station. In fact, there’s an underground pedestrian corridor planned to link Embarcadero to TTC:

    Of course, who knows when that will be built, but in the meantime with the short distance involved and SF’s moderate weather it likely won’t be too great a hardship for most people to walk that transfer above ground on sidewalks.



    The transit center makes me laugh. No BART station for the future transbay line. No bullet train yet, nowhere near until 2030. And only Caltrain, which will be diesel-electric, and not fully electrified, nor will the DTX tunneling be ready (or even start) for the transit center’s opening.
    Disjointed planning is comical. Now we get a giant phallic white elephant, with no transit. And she’s like “the city has no money”, yeah right. Just mentioning the 2nd Transbay tube had Mayor Lee yapping about a new SOMA station. Just admit you don’t care about Caltrain, it’s not a secret.

    It’s like when BART built the market street subway and Muni didn’t run in it for 8 years. Except much worse. This planning makes less sense, and there’s no light at the end of the tunnel. Why City Hall hates Caltrain so much is beyond me.


    Zachary Hanna

    “The policy imperative is to maximize throughput and capacity, i.e. move the greatest numbers of vehicles through the city, to enable people and goods to get where they are going in a timely way, consistent with an acceptable level of safety.. That is essentially an economic imperative.”

    See, you got 1 word wrong here. The policy SHOULD be:
    “The policy imperative is to maximize throughput and capacity, i.e. move the greatest numbers of <<>> through the city, to enable people and goods to get where they are going in a timely way, consistent with an acceptable level of safety.. That is essentially an economic imperative.”



    Why would you get grease on your hands on a bike, but not on a motor vehicle? Have I been doing it wrong all along? I thought I put grease on my bike chain, not on the handlebars. You know, like how I put oil in the engine of my car and not on the steering wheel.

    When I drive a car, I usually lock the door, just like I lock my bike.


    Jym Dyer

    @neutral_corner – Your comment indicates you don’t know the rules of the road, which allow kids* to bike on sidewalks. I trust you don’t operate any vehicle in bicycle on our streets, since you don’t know the law.

    * Most of the state, the nation, and the world also permits adults to bike on sidewalks, as well. San Francisco is an anomaly.



    Imagine how many cars we could park on that multi-block rooftop park!


    Jym Dyer

    I’m late to this party, but oh well.

    The California Vehicle Code allows “motor vehicles” to go onto the sidewalk to access a driveway, provided they do so safely. Since this point of the law uses the phrase “motor vehicles” rather than “vehicles” it does not apply to bicyclists. Most of California has no laws about bikes on the sidewalk, so this is usually pretty moot.

    Municipalities may write laws about bikes on the sidewalk, and for the most part they only ban them in commercial districts. Some have additionally written a version of the “motor vehicle” across the sidewalk to a driveway law to extend it to bicycles. San Francisco, on the other hand, just has a simple and sweeping ban on adult cyclists, and a 2008 simplification of the Traffic Code compounded this further, leading to various absurdities including a ban on crossing the sidewalk (safely) to ride on a driveway.

    The upshot of this? Two things:

    1) The city law’s about sidewalk-riding is arbitrary nonsense, not a moral absolute. (Riding safely and not harming others is the moral absolute.) At bare minimum, the Supes should fix the absurdity at driveways. I would also suggest something to make it legal for parents to accompany children.

    2) The California Assembly should change the wording of that law so that it applies to “vehicles” (and thus to bicycles), not “motor vehicles.”



    Driving a car is a convenience. Riding a bike just gets you there faster in dense urban environment but it’s not convenient. You have to deal with locking up your bike with grease on your hands, wear helmet, hi-vis outfit, worrying about drivers, etc. It’s not convenient, if anything, bicyclists work harder than drivers to get to their destinations.


    Bob Gunderson

    Ditch the Caltrain, then the buses and turn it into a mega parking garage.


    Darksoul SF

    Whats next “those people” going complaint to make people with different race low priority too?



    Sounds like you should be applying for a job at MUNI, given you are such a hard worker but only make 27,000 per year


    Willie D

    1. The drivers were never happy.
    2. They should be happy with their $109,000 per year salary, thats 4x more than I make in a year, and I dont just sit around on my ass and drive and not check tickets or deal with anything (cause lets be honest, Ive never seen a driver actually do anything when an issue arises). They should be the happiest damn drivers in the world.
    3. They could check tickets by saying the bus isnt moving till everyone reboards or shows fares through the front door, as the policy was for decades. Dont want to do the job, fine, Ill do it.


    Willie D

    So wait, not only do drivers, who are supposed to ensure all passengers have paid and have a receipt of payment still getting paid to not fully do their job, but the prices of the rides have gone up $0.25 in the last year, AND they added 11 Fare Inspectors at what? $80,000 per year per inspector, all to bring fare evasion down 0.9%? Sorry, but that’s not enough for me to justify 4 seconds faster boarding, a higher fare, and more people to do what the drivers are supposed to do. In fact, the fare should DROP because there are more people paying the fare, and less evading it.


    Chris J.

    The earth is literally at risk due to warming. Heaven forbid we do anything to encourage bicycling.



    Golden Gate Bridge to return to 3-3 lane split for most evening commute hours:

    –> At afternoon peak 45.4% of all GG bridge traffic is southbound, while 54.6% is northbound.

    –> There are 6 auto lanes on GG Bridge.

    –> A pilot trial from Sep-Dec ’15 changed the afternoon lane split from 3-3 to 4-2 (with 4 lanes going to the northbound side) from 4p-6p (really more like 3:30p-6:30p with the half hour needed to do the road zipper).

    –> In other words, southbound traffic got just a hair over 33% of road capacity despite carrying more than 45% of its volume, while northbound traffic got almost 67% of road capacity despite only carrying less than 55% of its volume.

    Predictably, this caused horrendous delays for southbound traffic while northbound traffic often flowed freely with clear excess capacity. After all, despite the perception of southbound being the “reverse” commute, that 45/55% split shows it’s actually a lot closer than people might think.

    Why care about freeway traffic on Streetsblog? GG Bridge and 101 do not have transit-only lanes. I actually significantly modified my southbound GGT commute to cope with it since after the pilot started I was regularly getting delays of an extra 30-45 minutes on top of my normal southbound bus commute.

    The pilot found that the extra northbound capacity is really only needed most on Thursdays and Fridays when more people are leaving SF, so the 4-2 split will remain on those evening commutes (and for a smaller window of time than the pilot).

    While this will probably reintroduce some comparative northbound delays, a close 45/55% volume split is more equitably served by a 50/50% lane split than a 33/67% one.

    Of course, HOV lanes would also be a big boon to transit, but that’s a whole ‘nother story.



    And why is SF FULL of tourists? In large part because SF hosts these events that build the PR for the city.

    The Super Bowl is GREAT. Santa Clara bears the lion share of the costs of putting on the event and SF will reap most of the PR and profits.



    I wholeheartedly recommend this! The world needs more bikes and fewer cars. Just don’t forget to prioritize safety and maintenace, here is useful resource for that:



    I don’t know what your perception is but to me San Francisco is FULL of tourist and conventions year round. We don’t need anybody (or any event – Oracle) shutting down streets and transit to generate tax dollars from visitors.



    It would be easy enough to look at arrival time statistics to see if there was a correlation between timeliness and pay. I’d guess that motorized traffic (based on route and time of day) has a far greater impact.

    Maybe they just need more training.


    Darksoul SF

    Only if SFMTA did agreed to pull down the wires…They originally said they will pay for any cost. Now after the new plan, SFMTA have spend many more tax payers money.


    Darksoul SF

    Those logical Supervisors approved this Bike Yield Law. Vision Zero out the window. San Francisco should not become Idhalo.



    Re: Captain Sanford Says Bike Yield will Create Chaos

    “Being such a dense city, with so many visitors and distracted drivers, I will never be convinced it is safe to disobey any of the traffic laws, especially stop signs and red lights,” Sanford wrote in the newsletter.

    Really!? So Captain Sanford, is that why you never enforce double parking in the bike lanes (yes, not a moving violation, but you can enforce, especially the part where the motorist moves in/out of the lane to do their double parking), or motorists not using turn signals, or the motorists who continually nearly right hook/buzz bicyclists? Why don’t you set-up stings for these acts? If you aren’t biased against bicyclists, you would be setting up even more stings to catch motorists who routinely and *genuinely* threaten bicyclists safety with their dangerous and oblivious behavior.

    I’m so tired of this captain and his illogical, biased thinking. He’s been given a fair chance and he refuses to act rationally. He needs to go. We need some City leadership to step in here and make this happen. This guy is empowered to protect citizens and has absolutely no concept of the best way to do this other than acting like it’s 1970 and our cities are for cars, not people.



    No kidding. And the taxpayers also have to accept the tax dollars those darn football fans will spend in San Francisco.



    “City to Help Castro Merchants Deal with Superbowl Streetcar Closure”

    So taxpayers have to pay to shutdown the F-Market (I presume we still have to pay the streetcar drivers even while the line isn’t running?), pay to run buses instead, and now we have to pay for advertising to make up for it? The only Super Bowl ads I want in SF are big arrows pointing South.



    Funny, Izsak. Among other things, he consulted with opponents to street safety on Polk – for a fee.