Today’s Headlines

  • Developer Proposes LGBT/Leather-Themed Street Plaza on Block of 12th Street at Harrison (BAR)
  • Transbay Transit Center Naming Rights to Be Sold; ABAG to Be Audited After Street Fund Theft (SFGate)
  • Central Subway Loop Protested By Residents Worried About Service Cuts Southward (Muni Diaries)
  • Completion of Second Street Redesign Pushed Back to Mid-2017 (SocketSite)
  • Work on Folsom Street Hwy 80 Off-Ramp Re-Alignment Delayed By Contaminated Soil (SocketSite)
  • CHP Cracks Down on Carpool Lane Violators at Bay Bridge On-Ramp at Bryant Street (CBS)
  • More on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Path (KQED), GG Bridge Toll Service Snafu (ABC)
  • BART Board Asks DA to Drop Restitution Demands From Protesters Who Blocked Trains (Examiner)
  • Two Months Later, Police Arrest Hit-and-Run Driver Who Killed Man on Skyline in Daly City (KTVU)
  • Man Killed By Caltrain in San Jose in Apparently “Intentional Act” (SFGate)
  • Happy Valentine’s Day, Sustainable Urban Planning Lovers (TransForm, ClimatePlan)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • I can understand the T-Third loop concerns from Bayview/India Basin w/r/t service frequency, although it’s worth noting that the loop is partially constructed already:,-122.388321,3a,75y,260.52h,78.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSu6jpiymdlkgdv_Fs7CesQ!2e0

    There are protests from the Dogpatch area that seem to be mainly about not wanting streetcars trundling by people’s apartments, which I have less sympathy regarding.

  • The proposal for 2nd Street needed to happen yesterday. But with all the new offices in the area it’s uncomfortably crowded, and there just isn’t enough room for cars anymore. At this point cutting out half the car lanes isn’t enough — it should be a bike/ped only street to accommodate the enormous crowds.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    Would be the best thing that ever happened to 21A.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    Why do they need a loop? Can’t the use a switch, where the operator walks from one end of the car to the other?

  • davd vartanoff

    Muni has so mistreated riders that even an otherwise useful and non-controversial piece of trackwork is seen as facilitating degraded service. Short turning streetcars to keep service fluid has been a strategy for over a century, but Muni has abused the process. “There’s another train right behind me” and I’ll respect you in the morning.

  • mx

    I agree there’s a huge problem at 2nd street. But I think Muni needs to be considered too. Where should the 10-Towsend run? Intentionally creating a massive traffic jam for private auto traffic on 2nd might be fine with the “gridlock all the cars” crowd, but buses will be stuck in the same traffic.

  • Jeffrey Baker

    There is already chronic gridlock on 2nd both sides of the bridge.

  • Prinzrob

    Antioch bicyclist was stabbed by a driver yesterday in an apparent road rage incident:

  • I’m not sure why a loop vs. a switch. They obviously do a switch at the far end of the line, past Visitacion Valley.

    BTW, my Street View link seems be garbled into a general GMaps link? You can look at what I meant at 18th & 3rd or 19th & 3rd, though.

  • mx

    True. I’m just saying the problem is far more nuanced than “build lots of bike/ped features and people will magically give up driving and find other ways to get around.” A good number of the changes SFMTA has made to intentionally degrade service for autos in favor of other modes have also led to gridlock that hurts transit service. A strategy that relies on trying to make driving so miserable that everyone takes transit instead is particularly counterproductive when it makes transit even more miserable too.

  • coolbabybookworm

    Traffic circulation is also far more nuanced than one street, especially given the high volume arterials and grid pattern surround the project. In this part of town there is no bike infrastructure other than sharrows and a class 2 lane on Folsom/Howard and Townsend going perpendicular. The plan for 2nd is similar to what was done in Mission, some streets are more focused on auto flow (guerrero), some on transit (mission) and some on bikes (valencia). In this case 2nd would be the focus for bike infrastructure and a number of changes are being made (turn restrictions, boarding bulbouts) to facilitate transit. Maximizing every street to squeeze as much private auto traffic as possible doesn’t result in good bus transit. The strategy isn’t to degrade driving, it simply acknowledges that more auto lanes does not reduce gridlock, it induces driving. Induced driving trips, however, does result in more gridlock.

  • Ted King

    Throughput. The loop lets them turn a train around without blocking the tracks. The various turnbacks around the city (e.g. [1] just west of West Portal, [2] near Tenth Ave. + Judah) require the following train holding clear of the turnback for several minutes while the operator of the short-turner MANUALLY flips the switch and then reverses onto the other set of tracks. Muni’s manual turnbacks are a robust and less expensive solution to the rigidity inherent in the compact layout of S.F.’s mainlines.

    Keep in mind that the following loops could unsnarl some chokepoints:
    1) West Portal (Vicente / Wawona)
    2) Sunset (Tenth Ave / Irving)

  • Jeffrey Baker

    I guess I will be pretty satisfied if service is ever so robust on this line that switching a car back caused a disruption. But if they can have control-system-operated switches for a turnback loop, we do we have to assume that a turnback switch is manually operated?

  • Bruce

    Also, the same loop may eventually be used by the E Embarcadero, allowing single-ended trolleys to be used on that line once it goes into service.

  • Ted King

    Muni’s switches (aka points) are of four types : [1] traffic-select (merges); [2] manual (turnbacks); [3] pressure-select (e.g. St. Francis Woods; Balboa Park; Duboce + Church); [4] remote control (inner yard ones and possibly near Embarcadero [west side]). I don’t know for sure about the remote control ones and I believe the mini-yard’s [east side] are automatics.

    In view of their maintenance problems having as few parts as possible in their turnbacks makes a lot of sense. A motor-driven switch adds a motor, a couple of power supplies (for the motor and various electronic modules), a pressure sensor, some sort of stoplight, and a possible data link to central dispatch. If there were a data link then there has to be hardware and software to interpret the data. And your system diagram may have to have an uncheap set of lights to display that switch’s status. All of that gear adds to the capital costs and to the maintenance costs.

  • It’s a shame that this part of the plan (since 1999) didn’t get funded til recently…there’d be less “why are they putting the loop there next to a pre-school?” in a building less than 5 years old, in what was an empty lot.
    There’s been some lip service to serving the minorities/poor further south–but the ‘solution’ of pushing it down to the rail yard doesn’t serve Bayview et. al. and sounds like progressive-washing to me.