http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/San_Francisco_12-28-04_6487.JPG/450px-San_Francisco_12-28-04_6487.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Sfrancisco_trolley.jpg/760px-Sfrancisco_trolley.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/OrionVIILowFloorInSanFrancisco.jpg/800px-OrionVIILowFloorInSanFrancisco.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Pacific_Electric_1061_in_SFO_12-28-04b.JPG/800px-Pacific_Electric_1061_in_SFO_12-28-04b.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/T_Third_Islais.jpg/800px-T_Third_Islais.jpg

The San Francisco Municipal Railway (SF Muni or Muni) is the public transit system for the city and county of San Francisco, California. In 2006, it served 46.7 square miles (121 km2) with an operating budget of about $700 million.[4] In ridership Muni is the seventh largest transit system in the United States, with 210,848,310 rides in 2006[5] and the second largest in California behind Metro in Los Angeles. With a fleet average of 7-8.1 mph, it is also the slowest major transit system in America.[6]

Muni is an integral part of public transit in the city of San Francisco, operating 365 days a year and connecting with regional transportation services, such as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), SamTrans, and AC Transit. Its network consists of 54 bus lines, 17 trolley bus lines, 7 light rail lines that operate above ground and in the City's lone subway tube (called Muni Metro), 3 cable car lines, and a heritage streetcar line known as the F Market & Wharves. Many weekday riders are commuters, as the daytime weekday population in San Francisco exceeds its normal residential population. Muni shares four metro stations with BART, which can lead to confusion amongst visitors. Travelers can connect to San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport via BART.

Muni routes operate on a schedule, and the frequency of service varies at various times of day. Trip planning has been made easier by the implementation of GPS monitoring for most routes through NextBus, allowing for easier predictions of arrival times. Several routes operate 24 hours a day.

Muni planning to ramp up 8 routes (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/03/muni-planning-ramp-8-routes#ixzz1oPYCfQgR)

http://www.sfexaminer.com/files/blog_images/web%20muni.jpg

Muni plans to significantly speed up eight of its most heavily used lines as part of a long-delayed service improvement plan.

Through a combination of traffic-signal upgrades, stop consolidations, lane modifications and parking restrictions, Muni has projected travel times on the eight lines could be reduced by up to 28 percent. Routes include the N-Judah, 14-Mission, 30-Stockton and 5-Fulton.

Muni's busiest routes:

http://www.sfcityscape.com/design/art/SF_main_lines_720.gif
Source: http://www.sfcityscape.com/

Red = Light rail
Yellow = Trolley (historic streetcar)
Thick blue = BART rail
Thin blue = Bus

Muni Cable Cars
http://www.sfcablecar.com/images/sfroutes.gif
Source: http://www.sfcablecar.com/routes.html

http://www.sfcityscape.com/wallpaper/ipad/f_ferry_bldg.jpg
Source: http://www.sfcityscape.com/

Cable Cars of the California Street Line
http://www.sfcityscape.com/wallpaper/iphone/california_cable_cars.jpg
Source: http://www.sfcityscape.com/

Muni fares still cheap compared to other U.S. systems
By: Will Reisman | 03/27/12 6:43 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

The cost of a monthly Muni pass with BART access inside The City is once again poised to increase, but frustrated riders can take solace: Public transit in San Francisco is still much cheaper than other major U.S. cities.

Next year, that Muni pass is expected to cost $76, marking nearly a 70 percent increase since 2009. At its current $72 rate, the pass costs less than all but one of 10 U.S. cities with comparable transit service. And without BART access, it’s $62 -- a deal only bested by Boston’s $59 rate.

New York City’s monthly pass costs $104, Chicago’s is $86 and in Philadelphia it ranges from $83 to $191.

Muni’s proposed monthly fare increases -- $2 hikes are slated for the next two Julys -- would generate about $3.5 million annually for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which is facing a two-year shortfall of $53.2 million.

Gabe Metcalf, executive director of the local think tank San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said there is room for Muni’s monthly pass to go up, especially when comparing the cost with the SFMTA’s peers. But he said the single-trip cash fare, $2, has likely reached its peak . . . .

At about 22 percent, Muni’s fare-recovery ratio is much lower than agencies in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., according to the Federal Transit Administration . . . .

79 percent of U.S. transit agencies increased fares or reduced service in 2011.
Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/03/muni-fares-still-cheap-compared-other-us-systems

I was leaving SF State to head home. I saw the train at 19th and Holloway picking up passengers. My light to cross 19th was about to change, so I decided to run for the train.

You know that really lame thing that happens, where sometimes when you’re walking and your ankle randomly buckles under the weight of your body? Yeah, that happened to me. While I was running as fast as I could. Across 19th Avenue.

I bit it hard. Bit it for all the students and people in cars to see. And the Muni operator had the best view.

I got up and hobbled my way up the platform, jeans torn, one ankle out of commission. And, big shock, the Muni operator took off without me.

It was that day that I decided never to run for another bus, streetcar, or LRV ever again . . . .
More and "Do You Run For Muni?" Poll @ http://www.munidiaries.com/2012/03/28/poll-do-you-run-for-muni/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=poll-do-you-run-for-muni

San Francisco Central Subway station bids sought
By: Will Reisman | 04/18/12 7:43 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

The next phase of The City’s $1.6 billion Central Subway project is set to begin.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is now taking bids for a $210 million project to build the Union Square station, a depot that will be a key connecting point for passengers.

Construction companies have until July 11 to submit a bid, with a decision on the winner coming soon after. Work is expected to begin in 2013 and be completed by 2017 . . . .

The SFMTA’s board of directors approved a $233 million pact last year for tunneling work, and bids for the $235 million construction contract for the Chinatown station are due May 8 . . . .


http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/04/san-francisco-central-subway-station-bids-sought

Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center
Golden Gate National Recreation Area » Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center » Document List

February 17, 2012: The National Park Service (NPS) is pleased to announce the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center. The project would lengthen the historic streetcar F-line from Fisherman's Wharf to the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and on to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), ending at the Fort Mason Center . . . .

Preferred Alternative:
The Preferred Alternative would extend the existing F-Line from Fisherman's Wharf to Fort Mason Center. The track extension would include a street-running segment along Beach Street, a transition zone between the street-running segment and the Fort Mason Tunnel, a tunnel segment and a turnaround segment with two options for locations, Alternative 2A: North Loop (Fort Mason parking lot) and 2B: South Loop (Great Meadow). Project elements would include the construction of streetcar track for approximately 0.85 miles, construction of 8-9 station platforms, upgrades to the existing Fort Mason Tunnel, and installation of signals, crossings, wires and poles.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=15547

http://www.socketsite.com/F-Line%20Extension.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/what_the_fline.html

the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit line, a plan to bring a subway-like service to the one of the city’s busiest streets. The MTA Board of Directors approved the plan to run down the center of the street, between Mission and Lombard streets, staggering stations on opposite sides of most cross streets to preserve trees installed as part of a recent landscaping effort.

Bus Rapid Transit lines run in dedicated lanes using low-floor buses and stop at small stations with boarding platforms and ticket machines. Proponents say they’re a relatively inexpensive way to provide rapid transit service without building a pricey rail line.

“We can’t tunnel through everything,” said MTA director Malcolm Heinicke. “This is the closest thing we can get to an above-ground subway.”

The rapid bus line is expected to cost $125 million to $130 million with about $80 million expected to come from a federal program, another $20 million from the Prop. K transportation sales tax and the rest from state and regional funds. According to the MTA, they still need to come up with another $15-$20 million.

Of course, they’ll have some time to round up the needed cash. Environmental studies and design are still in progress, and construction isn’t scheduled to start until spring of 2015. It’s expected to take about a year.


Source: http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/15/speedier-muni-service-is-coming/

Muni Central Subway Stations

_RxrdhqNtss

Another day on Muni (as filmed from the line to buy some over-priced sneakers):

Rv1KQGNPisE

MUNI sucks! ...ok No..LOL the routes and coverage in the city are good..but they have serious problems keeping the system on time with the schedule :ohno:

True Muni experience--today:

I get on the bus. Driver has a paper plate of food in left hand, driving with right hand. I sit down behind him but when seat with more room opens up across the aisle I move there--with good sight line to driver who glares at me. I say to him, "What?" He says, "You saw me eating." I say, "I saw you eating when I got on." We both laugh. :nuts:

SFMTA Gets $21 Million Grant For New Muni Buses
by Bay City News
July 24, 2012 1:53 AM

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency plans to upgrade its aging bus fleet with the help of more than $21 million in federal grants, city officials announced Monday.

The grants, awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration, will be distributed to 255 projects around the country, including others in the Bay Area.
. . . new 40-foot buses will replace 18 20-year-old buses, reducing toxic emissions from the vehicles, according to agency officials. The first of the new buses is expected to arrive in early 2013 . . . .

BART is receiving nearly $3.2 million to install more signage with real-time bus and rail arrival times at some of its intermodal stations, while AC Transit is receiving $7.5 million to purchase new fareboxes . . . .

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/07/sfmta-gets-21-million-grant-for-new-muni-buses.php

More and "Do You Run For Muni?" Poll @ http://www.munidiaries.com/2012/03/28/poll-do-you-run-for-muni/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=poll-do-you-run-for-muni

You'd think that MUNI would have much more frequent service to serve a campus as large as SF State University. Yet the M light rail service to the southern end of the city is very poor & unreliable.

Nice thread!

http://transit.511.org/static/providers/maps/SF_1222201021110.gif

Source: http://transit.511.org/

Did you know that I have a dedicated photo collection of all things Muni, plus a comprehensive site that focuses on it too? Well, here's what I have:

Muni photos (caution: this is in Beta mode; if link doesn't work, use alternate link below)
http://s78.beta.photobucket.com/user/wishfulanthony/library/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni

Alternate link:
http://photobucket.com/anthonynachor (search on Library: SF Transport > San Francisco Muni) -- also of note: Muni pics are also on my main gallery page too... have a look!

Muni profiles: (includes buses, cable car, and Muni Metro; streetcar page under development)
http://www.anthonynachor.com/san-francisco-muni.html

Source: http://www.sfgate.com

Transit strategy bodes well for '13 Cup
Michael Cabanatuan
Updated 9:24 a.m., Monday, October 8, 2012

The buses were crowded and the streets were full of revelers, but gridlock did not suffocate San Francisco on a frenzied weekend of big crowds at events spread across the city.

Muni managed to haul hundreds of thousands of extra passengers, and while some buses and streetcars were packed full or moved slowly, the transit agency's strategy of flooding key lines with extra service seemed to work.

The mostly smooth operation was seen as a good sign leading into next year's America's Cup races, which some have estimated will bring 3 million spectators to the city.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Transit-strategy-bodes-well-for-13-Cup-3927194.php#ixzz28k3ntBpZ

Now this is an important question that we can all focus on: I would like to hear your thoughts and views on this.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/IMG9197_zps00891957.jpg

Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com

Muni expects $942 million in Central Subway funding
By: Will Reisman | 10/10/12 8:36 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Muni’s controversial $1.6 billion Central Subway project is poised to receive a long-awaited $942 million federal grant today, a move that will finally secure full funding for construction.

On Wednesday, the federal Department of Transportation issued a notice that it would make a “major funding announcement” today regarding the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni. Sources on Wednesday confirmed that it would be the Full Funding Grant
Agreement.

The announcement, expected to come at a 1:30 p.m. news conference on Stockton Street between Ellis and O’Farrell streets, is the culmination of a decadelong process. In 2002, the Federal Transit Administration approved engineering clearance to study the Central Subway. The SFMTA applied for the $942 million grant in September 2011 and expected to receive it last December.

Read more: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/muni-expects-942-million-central-subway-funding

Source: www.sfgate.com

S.F. Central Subway subject of suit
Michael Cabanatuan
Updated 10:51 p.m., Wednesday, October 10, 2012

A day before federal transportation officials are expected to give $942.2 million to the controversial Central Subway, opponents of the project on Wednesday filed suit to stop construction of a station with a Union Square entrance.

The lawsuit, filed by subway critics Save Muni, is the latest, and so far most aggressive, effort to stall or kill construction of the 1.7-mile subway from Caltrain to Chinatown. The suit contends that the Municipal Transportation Agency's plans to build an entrance to the Union Square/Market Street station in the square violated a City Charter prohibition of nonrecreational uses in city parks. It seeks to force the Municipal Transportation Agency to move the station or put its location to a public vote.

Federal Department of Transportation officials on Wednesday scheduled an event for Thursday afternoon near Union Square to make what they billed as a "major transportation funding announcement."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Central-Subway-subject-of-suit-3937837.php#ixzz2926bu5K9

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Central Subway opponents seeking ballot initiative to nix project
By: Will Reisman | 10/11/12 9:44 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

On a day when lawmakers celebrated a $942 million grant approval for the Central Subway, opponents of the project announced plans Thursday to put a ballot initiative before voters that would give the electorate a chance to nix the massive undertaking.

The Fix Muni First Initiative would stop the $1.6 billion Central Subway project dead in its tracks if approved by more than 50 percent of The City’s voters in the November 2013 ballot, according to Quentin Kopp, a backer of the measure.

Kopp, a former Superior Court judge and San Francisco supervisor, said the measure would be an ordinance initiative, meaning its authorizations would overrule all the numerous approvals that the Central Subway project has secured at the local, state and federal levels.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/10/central-subway-opponents-seeking-ballot-initiative-nix-project#ixzz297H8apXt

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/10/central-subway-opponents-seeking-ballot-initiative-nix-project#ixzz297H8apXt

That's quite a scary tactic. They could do ballot initiatives, sure, but I don't know if they have seen the overcrowded buses on the 8x-Bayshore Express (also the 8AX and 8BX), 30-Stockton, and 45-Union/Stockton lines (as well as nearby lines 1, 10, 12, and the Powell Street cable car lines) that persist daily-- even on middays. I think that if they really want to rip the Central Subway off, those who will back that measure should consult first with the neighborhood associations involved in the project, including Union Square, Chinatown, Little Italy, and South of Market, as well as thousands of residents (who may only speak Chinese) areas north of Sutter Street. I think critics will need to go through a long fight with Muni because the Central Subway will de-clog overcrowded buses into frequent light rail service, and that it will hopefully improve land values served along the route.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and other local and federal officials announced Thursday that $942 million in federal funding has been secured for the city's Central Subway project.

That amount is expected to cover the majority of the cost of the $1.6 billion project to create a new branch of San Francisco Municipal Railway's T-Third line to link the city's South of Market neighborhood to Chinatown.

The subway is expected to open to the public in 2019 . . . .

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein also spoke at this afternoon's announcement, saying that the Central Subway is projected to have the second-highest ridership per mile of all subway and light-rail proposals seeking federal funding nationwide . . . .

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who also attended today's event, said the lawsuit will not stop construction . . . .
http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/10/as-central-subway-secures-942-million-mayor-calls-lawsuit-against-it-ridiculous.php

As for the threat of a ballot initiative, I think that's nonsense. This project comes at the instigation of the Asian (and particularly Chinese) Community. The opponents are a bunch of white folks who don't like the deal Willie Brown made with Chinatown to get the Embarcadero Freeway torn down. But with Asians and every significant politician in town supporting it, I don't see an initiative opposing it having much chance. The far left and what passes for the right in SF (like Kopp) will scream, but I think Pelosi and Feinstein will see that the Demo machine and its political clubs comes out against any such initiative.

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/10/as-central-subway-secures-942-million-mayor-calls-lawsuit-against-it-ridiculous.php

As for the threat of a ballot initiative, I think that's nonsense. This project comes at the instigation of the Asian (and particularly Chinese) Community. The opponents are a bunch of white folks who don't like the deal Willie Brown made with Chinatown to get the Embarcadero Freeway torn down. But with Asians and every significant politician in town supporting it, I don't see an initiative opposing it having much chance. The far left and what passes for the right in SF (like Kopp) will scream, but I think Pelosi and Feinstein will see that the Demo machine and its political clubs comes out against any such initiative.

In short, that initiative may be seen as short-sighted for only a few people who just want to cater for their own interests, not for those who really need them.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

SFMTA to combine contracts for its Central Subway project
By: Will Reisman | 10/23/12 8:50 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

After initially soliciting four separate bids for its Central Subway station construction projects, Muni has elected to consolidate the plans into one major contract, a move that could save the agency up to $30 million.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency originally made separate construction projects out of its proposed Moscone Center, Union Square and Chinatown stations, along with another project for operating systems management of the $1.6 billion Central Subway project.

However, after discussing the projects with its local and federal funding partners, the agency has combined the plans into a single major contract worth $720 million to $750 million, project manager John Funghi said. When designs for all four plans were completed at the same time, Funghi said, that provided the agency with a unique opportunity to consolidate them. By eliminating constraints and redundancies posed by the separated contracts, he said the agency could save about $20 million to $30 million.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/sfmta-combine-contracts-its-central-subway-project#ixzz2APlL8DIz

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/sfmta-combine-contracts-its-central-subway-project#ixzz2APlL8DIz

Looks like the SFMTA found another way to save money indeed... Wise choice.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Wiener says Muni needs fixes, not youth passes
By: Will Reisman | 10/30/12 9:45 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

The year-plus battle over a free Muni fare program for San Francisco’s low-income youths took another turn Tuesday.

Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced a nonbinding resolution urging that all available transportation funds be used for maintenance and repair work on Muni’s battered transit vehicles. It was a direct response to the recent approval of $6.7 million in federal funds for Muni, which many hope will be used to pay for a 22-month free fare pilot program for 40,000 low-income youths.

With Muni performing at historically poor levels — its latest on-time rate was 58 percent, well below the 85 percent goal — Wiener said the money should go toward repairing buses and other faulty equipment.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/10/wiener-says-muni-needs-fixes-not-youth-passes#ixzz2B0rJaeLK

^^ then what would be a compromise that can be done to allow underprivileged youth to ride MUNI, if not for free, for a lower than the current youth rate? Plus, when will newer buses be rolling along San Francisco's streets?

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

San Francisco celebrates Muni Centennial Celebration
By: Max DeNike | 11/04/12 6:52 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Muni kicked off Centennial Week on Sunday to celebrate its 100th birthday. Streetcars are rolled out on the oldest rail line, the J-Church, which opened in 1917.

Next Sunday, those streetcars will travel along Muni’s newest rail line, the T-Third Street, from downtown to Cesar Chavez Street.

During the week, several vintage streetcars will operate on the F line as part of regular daily service between the Castro district and Fisherman’s Wharf.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/11/san-francisco-celebrates-muni-centennial-celebration#ixzz2BUemMiCs

^^ I'd love to see those in action! ;)

Finally, some good sense. I'm opposed to this free passes for youth idea not only because there are better uses for the money but because it's youthful riders who cause most of the trouble on Muni. Frankly, I try to avoid times--like when school lets out--when the busses are crowded with them. I do not want to see more kids joy-riding on a system that should be a practical mode of transportation for working adults.

Supes Committee Votes Against Free Muni For Youth Plan, Calls It "borderline irresponsible"
by Bay City News
November 19, 2012 10:15 PM

A San Francisco Board of Supervisors committee voted today to recommend against a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency proposal that would give free Muni passes to youth.

The proposal is part of $6.7 million awarded to the SFMTA as part of Transit Performance Initiative funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that also would include service reliability improvements.

However, SFMTA's proposal to use $1.6 million to fund a free Muni pass program for youth has come under criticism by some city lawmakers.

During today's Government Accountability and Oversight Committee meeting, Supervisor Scott Wiener cited Muni's the poor performance record and the $420 million in differed maintenance to vehicles.

"For decades, we as a city have severely under-invested in Muni," Wiener said. "There's always a reason for diverting money away from investing in Muni. Politicians, interest groups and others can always think of great ideas for using Muni maintenance vehicles and other operational money for a purpose other than making Muni more reliable."

The proposal will now be heard by the full Board of Supervisors but the committee's recommendation will be to disallow the free pass program . . . .

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/11/supes-committee-votes-against-free-muni-for-youth-plan-calls-it-borderline-irresponsible.php

^^ I basically have mixed opinions on the Free Muni rides for the youths, especially for those living below the poverty line, because many of the same kids cannot even afford to pay the full youth fare to begin with, and would like to rather use the money to buy food and find a way to allocate the money to ride the bus to begin with. Yet, with Muni's poor on-time ratings and maintenance issues, it is a wise decision to defer the free Muni program for now until such issues are resolved to begin with.

Source: www.sfgate.com

All S.F. Muni Metro lines out of service
Vivian Ho and Joe Garofoli
Updated 7:56 p.m., Monday, December 3, 2012

(12-03) 19:54 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A blown transformer at the Van Ness Muni Station in San Francisco caused the shutdown of the Metro subway system Monday evening.

Muni officials said the transformer blew at about 6 p.m. as a result of rain damage from Sunday's storm. There is no estimate when service to the subway will be restored. Light-rail vehicles are running on surface lines in the western part of the city.

Also, cars on the F-Market line, which runs above ground, were being turned around at 11th Street because of an earlier accident at Market and Dolores streets.

The subway shutdown was affecting 40,000 to 50,000 commuters.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/All-S-F-Muni-Metro-lines-out-of-service-4088280.php#ixzz2E3OIDrd9

http://www.socketsite.com/SF%20Central%20Subway%20Proposed%20Map.gif
Seeking to quell the vocal concerns of North Beach merchants and residents who would be disrupted by the digging, Muni General Manager Ed Reiskin has told the Chronicle that he plans to recommend an abandonment of the plan to dig up Columbus, instead "he'll recommend to the Municipal Transportation Agency that the subway tunnel be extended to Columbus and Powell Street, site of the long-abandoned Pagoda Theater" which the City doesn't currently own, but upon which a North Beach station could be built if it did.

Pagoda Theater
http://www.socketsite.com/Pagoda%20Theater%202010.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/12/a_plan_to_extend_the_central_subway_tunnel_to_north_bea.html

Makes a lot of sense to have a North Beach station. It should have been part of the original plan.

^^ I've listened to the recent Muni incidents on KCBS, and it seems like the Muni Metro is still out of service as of the moment. However, the F-Market and Wharves streetcar line, has resumed regular service on the entire route. The Metro lines are operating with bus bridges until further notice.

Source (http://transit.511.org/accessible/announcements/detail.aspx?ann=88687)

As for a North Beach station, I would like to see a plaza surrounding the station, along with a wayfinding marker that presents nearby attractions and sister cities of San Francisco from North Beach.

Makes a lot of sense to have a North Beach station. It should have been part of the original plan.

The "original plan" was intended to get enough support from Chinatown for tearing down the Embarcadero Freeway (which the Chinatown movers and shakers saw as a structure bringing business to their 'hood). So the main goal was service to Chinatown.

But pretty much everyone with any vision at all sees this line ultimately being extended, not just to North Beach but to the Marina, possibly via Ft. Mason.

Still, you've got to do what you can do when you can do it. The circumstances offered only enough support and money to build to Chinatown for now--the rest will eventually come.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Free Muni service for low-income San Francisco youths finally gains approval
By: Will Reisman | 12/05/12 4:00 AM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

After two years of ups and downs, The City’s low-income youths and their families and advocates can finally take a deep breath, relax and enjoy the moment.

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s board of directors accepted $1.6 million in regional grant funding that will clear the way for a 16-month pilot project to provide free Muni service to 40,000 low-income youths. The program is scheduled to begin in March.

“Not only does this address the immediate needs of getting our youths to schools, but it makes a strong statement that our local transit agency values young people and their families,” said Supervisor David Campos, a vocal advocate of the program.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/12/free-muni-service-low-income-san-francisco-youths-finally-gains-approva#ixzz2EKgPEqyd

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/

MTA supports Pagoda site for subway exit
CENTRAL SUBWAY 'No guarantee,' but agency will try to end line at abandoned theater
Michael Cabanatuan
Updated 11:06 p.m., Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Municipal Transportation Agency directors told their staff Tuesday to do everything they can to make the abandoned Pagoda Palace Theater the place where the Central Subway's tunnel-boring machines are pulled from the ground.

Moving the extraction site from the middle of Columbus Avenue to the former theater at the corner of Columbus and Powell Street could help eliminate two problems: Recent, and growing, opposition to the Central Subway's plans to tunnel to North Beach, and a persistent and prominent eyesore in the center of a historic and well-touristed neighborhood.

"But there is no guarantee," warned director Malcolm Heinicke, as North Beach residents applauded the board's action.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/MTA-supports-Pagoda-site-for-subway-exit-4091603.php#ixzz2EKhkTP89

Looks like no one covered this one just yet, but I have already on my blog: Muni to offer free rides on December 28. This is in line with Muni's centennial birthday this year.

Source (http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/12/06/free-muni-for-everyone-for-a-day/)

Finally, some good sense. I'm opposed to this free passes for youth idea not only because there are better uses for the money but because it's youthful riders who cause most of the trouble on Muni. Frankly, I try to avoid times--like when school lets out--when the busses are crowded with them. I do not want to see more kids joy-riding on a system that should be a practical mode of transportation for working adults

No doubt many MUNI riders would agree with your comments.

However looks like the free MUNI rides for school students will be proceeding as noted in this SF Chronicle article, thanks to the SF Board of Supes:

Like a slow bus forced to lurch through heavy traffic (The 30-Stockton comes to mind), the two-year battle by youth activists for a Free Muni for Youth program successfully reached its desired destination Tuesday.

The Metropolitan Transportation Agency voted unanimously to spend an estimated $1.6 million in federal funds dedicated to improving transit performance and ridership on a 16-month program offering free Fast Passes to low-income San Franciscans under 18.

The program is scheduled to begin in March and continue through June 2014.

Youth activists, headed by the group POWER, have been pushing for a free youth fare program for nearly two years with the backing of Supervisor David Campos.

“Many families will benefit from this program,” said Elena Martinez, a parent supporting the plan. “Thank you for investing in our children.”

Last April, as part of the budget process, the MTA board rejected the idea of giving a free ride to all kids but tentatively OK’d plans for a program for low-income youth. That approval depended on getting up to $5 million in funds from the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which declined the request out of concerns of regional fairness.

But last month, the commission gave the MTA a $6.7 million allotment of federal funds that can be used for ridership-boosting programs or for repairs and maintenance to improve system performance. Those funds prompted some members of the Board of Supervisors, who don’t officially have any say over Muni operations, to oppose the free-fare program and instead devote all of the funding toward better maintenance of Muni.

MTA chief Ed Reiskin recommended splitting the money to fund both free fares and light-rail vehicle maintenance with the latter getting $5.1 million.

“It’s a balancing of different needs,” he said. “We have the needs of the system and we have the needs of the community.”

Director Malcolm Heinicke voiced concern about funding the free fare program when Muni has so many maintenance needs but voted for the program because he said the agency had made a commitment to proceed if it got funding from the commission.

Posted By: Michael Cabanatuan, SF Gate

^^As Muni becomes less and less usable, I suspect I will again be getting a car.

^^ Or use BART more often. And by the way...

BART Pass will no longer be accepted on Muni starting January 1, 2013. Source (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/malerts/BARTPlusnolongeracceptedonMunieff.Jan.12013.htm)

Muni to offer free rides on New Year's Eve from 8pm 12/31 to 6am 1/1.

And, cal_escapee, all parking meters will be enforced on Sundays starting January 6, 2013, from noon to 6pm. Source and FAQs (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pmeter/sundaymeters.htm)

^^ Or use BART more often. And by the way...


BART does very little for me. I ride almost exclusively in the city, usually on busses. And I've been getting a senior fast pass every month I'm in the city.

I'll keep trying Muni but if it gets too weird then maybe there's a Fiat 500 in my future.

^^ Or how about doing City Car Share or ZipCar? You can get a car at Civic Center, drop it off at the Marina, and take Muni from there.

^^ Or how about doing City Car Share or ZipCar? You can get a car at Civic Center, drop it off at the Marina, and take Muni from there.

There are Zip Cars in my building and I currently am a member--have been for years. I also currently have a 200cc scooter for grocery shopping and such. But I can foresee the time when I won't be able to ride the scooter safely and Muni will become too much of a hassle. I am constantly re-assessing.

There are Zip Cars in my building and I currently am a member--have been for years. I also currently have a 200cc scooter for grocery shopping and such. But I can foresee the time when I won't be able to ride the scooter safely and Muni will become too much of a hassle. I am constantly re-assessing.

Oh OK. Well, MUNI has been quite good to me lately because their buses and Metro run nearly on time... yet I'm struggling to keep up with overstuffed buses, especially on the 28-19th Avenue line. And lately, I've discovered a great way to save money on MUNI: with a Clipper Card, I take BART from anywhere to Daly City, tap off there, and I get two free rides on the 14L, 28, 28L, and 54 lines, saving me up to $3.50 (or two passes out of a 10-ride pass).

Source: www.sfgate.com

Sit in public art while awaiting Muni
Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists
Updated 3:58 pm, Wednesday, December 12, 2012

If you're waiting for Muni, chances are you'll have to sit a spell - so why not on a comfy chair that looks like something out of your grandmother's den?
If your grandma is a metalworker, that is, and if she could afford $9,100 for the chair.
That seems to be the idea behind the nine cast bronze chairs just installed at three spots at Church Street and Duboce Avenue, a busy stop for Muni Metro.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Sit-in-public-art-while-awaiting-Muni-4111116.php#ixzz2Fji5SeQ6

^^ The next story could be: more Muni stops now sport works of art... A clever and creative way to define Muni Metro, bus, and streetcar stops.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Muni to run reduced service for last week of December
By: Will Reisman | 12/19/12 6:17 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

If you’re staying in San Francisco for the upcoming holidays, you might have some difficulty getting around The City on Muni.

For the first time, Muni will run a reduced-service schedule for an entire week, with buses starting later and running less frequently before, during and after Christmas on Tuesday.

Muni will run its Saturday schedule on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Dec. 31. The Saturday schedule will entail less frequent service on busy bus lines such as the 14-Mission and 38-Geary. Cable cars, light-rail lines and streetcars will not be affected.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/12/muni-run-reduced-service-last-week-december#ixzz2FjkFQfAq

So to confirm the above story, here are the following lines that will run Saturday schedules for 24 December, as well as 26 to 28 December and 31 December:


1-California
3-Jackson
5-Fulton
6-Parnassus
8x-Bayshore Express (no 8AX or 8BX services will be provided)
9-San Bruno (inbound terminal at Market & 2nd)
14-Mission
14L-Mission Limited
17-Parkmerced*
18-46th Avenue
21-Hayes
22-Fillmore
23-Monterey
24-Divisadero
27-Bryant
29-Sunset
30-Stockton
31-Balboa
33-Stanyan
35-Eureka*
36-Teresita*
37-Corbett*
38-Geary
38L-Geary Limited
39-Coit
44-O'Shaughnessy
45-Union/Stockton
48-Quintara/24th Street (all trips extended to Ocean Beach)
49-Van Ness/Mission
52-Excelsior*
54-Felton
56-Rutland*
66-Quintara*
67-Bernal Heights*
71-Haight/Noriega (no 71L service will be provided)
108-Treasure Island (operates every 20 minutes during AM Peak)

Note: * - indicates that service on this route will begin at normal weekday start time (e.g. 5am)

Non-express bus lines operating on a weekday schedule:

2-Clement
9L-San Bruno Limited (7:30am to 5:30pm)
10-Townsend
12-Folsom/Pacific
19-Polk
28-19th Avenue
28L-19th Avenue Limited
41-Union
43-Masonic
47-Van Ness

All Muni Metro, cable car, and F-Market and Wharves streetcar lines, as well as most express buses (except 8AX, 8BX, and 76X) will operate weekday schedules, as well as all Owl Lines (except M-Owl).

Source (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/malerts/MuniHolidayWeekService.htm)

Source: www.sfgate.com

Techies give Muni tools to boost service
TRANSIT
Michael Cabanatuan
Published 9:09 pm, Sunday, December 23, 2012

Could hundreds of geeks armed with laptops, iPads and mobile phones make Muni run on time?

That's probably too much to ask, but programmers and other tech-savvy transit fans are giving the Municipal Transportation Agency a free technological assist with some of its many problems. They're devising ways to alert passengers to transit delays, helping bicyclists find safe routes across the city, and, yes, making it easier for Muni officials to keep the buses on schedule.

Applications designed to accomplish those tasks, and more, have been the products of hackathons, several-hour or multiday events at which groups of technologically oriented folks pool their brainpower and try to come up with high-tech solutions to everyday difficulties. Increasingly, the agency, particularly Muni, has been the beneficiary.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Techies-give-Muni-tools-to-boost-service-4142659.php#ixzz2GCFqx6AI

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Muni celebrates 100 years by offering up free service on Friday
By: Will Reisman | 12/25/12 9:44 AM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

It may not be exactly what everyone had on their Christmas wish lists, but Muni is providing its own special gift Friday.

To celebrate its 100th year in service, Muni will offer up complimentary rides. That includes free service on buses, light-rail lines, cable cars and streetcars. The deal begins at 5 a.m. Friday and runs until 5 a.m. Saturday.

With 100 years of service as of Friday, Muni is the country’s oldest publicly owned transit system. Along with offering free rides, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has set up an online archive on its website featuring vintage photographs from its first century.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/12/muni-celebrates-100-years-offering-free-service-friday#ixzz2GCH1Oj1p

^^ Yep I've seen that coming already. I might take a ride on MUNI this Friday and join in the crowds to experience many of the MUNI lines I have not seen or ridden before!

Source: www.sfgate.com

City Hall must tackle Muni's problems
ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN SAN FRANCISCO
Published 5:58 pm, Thursday, December 27, 2012

The San Francisco Municipal Railway, one of the nation's most used and most maligned transit systems and a symbol of its city, turns 100 this month.

This network of 54 bus lines, 17 trolley bus routes, seven streetcar lines above and below ground and, of course, historic cable cars is the seventh largest public transit system in the United States. It's also one of the most complicated. It provides 220 million rides every year, often connecting to other regional arteries like BART, SamTrans and AC Transit. It's the central nervous system of Bay Area transit. When it opened 100 years ago, it was called "the people's road."

And it has its problems and critics. It can be slow and unreliable. It's an immense undertaking in a densely populated city, with 1,200 vehicles a day driving along 80 routes with stops within two blocks of 90 percent of San Francisco residences. It serves 71.5 miles of streetcar tracks, 8.8 miles of cable car routes, and miles and miles of bus lines all over the city, and sometimes it doesn't live up to its ambitions.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/City-Hall-must-tackle-Muni-s-problems-4150324.php#ixzz2GOWAYI5U

Source: www.sfgate.com

Municipal Railway celebrates 100 years
ANNIVERSARY Long history leads to modern system everybody loves to complain about
Carl Nolte
Updated 9:41 am, Friday, December 28, 2012

The San Francisco Municipal Railway is celebrating its 100th birthday Friday by giving its customers a present - free rides for one and all.

The free rides are a contrast to the Muni's first day of operation on Dec. 28, 1912, when everyone - even Mayor James Rolph Jr. - paid a fare. Rolph dropped a shiny new nickel in the fare box, made a short speech, and took the controls himself for the first ride on the first car of the first publicly owned big-city transit system in the country.

"It is in reality the people's road, built by the people and with the people's money," he said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Municipal-Railway-celebrates-100-years-4150766.php#ixzz2GOWZVYsf

Source: www.sfgate.com

Muni by the numbers
Published 10:57 pm, Thursday, December 27, 2012

San Francisco Municipal Railway by the numbers

Dec. 28, 1912 Date of first operation

5 cents First fare

$2 Adult cash fare today

$64 Fast Pass (not including BART)

673,196 Current average weekday boardings

75 Transit routes

1,050 Transit vehicles

506 Diesel buses

313 Electric trolley buses

151 Light-rail vehicles

40 Historic streetcars

40 Cable cars

71.5 Miles of single light-rail track

8.8 Miles of cable car track

Article: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Muni-by-the-numbers-4150767.php#ixzz2GOWoWwAM

I only wish I can travel on Muni for free today, but I can't bear the chill from up in the North Bay... And it is supposed to rain here from now until tonight. I have none to do in the City anyways, so I won't take advantage of the crowded buses to begin with ;)

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Muni takes note of success of holiday week service reduction
By: Will Reisman | 01/08/13 9:01 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Muni’s reduced holiday schedule could become a template for the future.

With ridership historically low in late December, Muni started service later and ran certain bus lines less frequently. Although projected to save $350,000, the $275,000 actually saved was enough for the agency to consider doing it again.

Muni delivered 97.5 percent of its scheduled service — a 3 percent improvement over 2011 — and rider complaints didn’t materialize, Director of Transit John Haley said.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/01/muni-takes-note-success-holiday-week-service-reduction#ixzz2HWEfXHIN

BART does very little for me. I ride almost exclusively in the city, usually on busses. And I've been getting a senior fast pass every month I'm in the city.

I'll keep trying Muni but if it gets too weird then maybe there's a Fiat 500 in my future.

You can't imagine how much it pisses me off to read this kind of comments. Because the point is, you are bloody right.

If I don't ride Muni any more often, it's not because it's expensive (because it's not). It's because it's horribly slow, rarely on time, unreliable, and far too often full of weirdos and uncivilized people. And like me, far too many of my friends, and probably thousands of people around the city and Bay Area.

^^ I understand your concerns, dude. I have the same sentiments myself, but driving in from Novato to San Francisco is already a hassle in itself: congestion, tolls, parking, finding alternate routes to get around... With Muni, I can be pretty sure where I'm heading, but with its poor on-time rate, I sometimes doubt myself if I will ride Muni again because I can take BART too to where I need to go, but I simply cannot escape it, especially I go to SF State.

^^ Your short post contains a big share of real facts:


Car ownership/ridership is becoming a big problem. I have trouble to see how people can't see it. Some roads are permanently congested. If new roads where to be built, then the burden would move on to the bridges (even more). And if new bridges were built, then the issue would be parking spots (San Franciscans' worst nightmare already) and congested streets. It's a vicious circle. Any answers and solutions? Yes: mass public transportation is needed (aka rail transportation). Unfortunately, the Bay Area in that respect is lagging some 60 years behind other similar wealthy urban areas. Any western European city, Japan, NYC or even some cities in South America make SF's public transportation look pathetic.

You say it: riding BART is acceptable (compared to Muni). Which confirms that Mass rail transit is part of the solution. Nevertheless, BART already has some big issues with its capacity, which manifestly prove that new lines are required. Expansion in San Mateo (and/or BARTisation of Caltrain) and Marin (I believe that SMART project ending in San Rafael totally misses its objective) are a must. Another major problem is the outrageous lack of a monthly/yearly pass for commuters, making driving a more affordable option for many. If BART frequencies were to increase (using BART during peak hours is not a nice experience) and prices for commuters using BART every day became reasonable, there would be a lot of less people driving their cars every day in areas that BART reaches.
Some parts of the city of San Francisco itself just take forever to be reached with Muni. I usually say that there are only two efficient Muni services: 1) buses at night (although you better catch your bus because frequencies are less good) because traffic is scarce and there are almost no passengers; 2) Muni metro (outside of Peak Hours). However, as crazy as it is for the epicenter of a region like the Bay Area, there are less than 10 Muni Metro stations (compared to over 400 stations in the New York area). And the Central Subway is just a tiny drop of a huge ocean that is needed.


I deeply regret the lack of will in San Francisco (both in its population and politicians) to think big and start planning big projects. It is obviously not something that is going to be finished overnight. But little by little big ambitious projects will have to be taken care of (or condemn citizens to impossible mobility). A real subway system has to be built. New tunnels are needed, both within the city of San Francisco and to connect SF with Marin. A new tunnel to the East Bay is going to be necessary in the short term.

As I say, this will be expensive. There is a lot to do that should have begun decades ago.

I live in the Duboce Triangle area, minutes away to the so-called East Portal. I consider it to be one of the best deserved areas in the city by public transportation, thanks to the fact that all Muni Metro lines are just minutes away, be that at Duboce&Church (overground), or Church St Station (underground).

Yet, everytime I use Muni, some thoughts come to my mind. Things that I don't understand, stuff that should be done better. One stretch of Muni overground that in my opinion would hugely benefit of a new tunnel is the short, 400-meter (1200ft) stretch between the East Portal and the beginning of the Sunset Tunnel. I have timed how long it takes from the moment Muni vehicles start coming out of the East Portal, and the moment they get into the Sunset Tunnel. As I say, it's barely 400/500 meters, no more. And yet, it can easily take up to 8 minutes. With a new tunnel joining the East Portal and the Sunset Tunnel, the N-Judah line would not come overground until the western end of the Sunset Tunnel. It could save 15 minutes everyday (that is, 75 minutes on a 5-day week, 5 hours per month, or 60 hours a year -more than two entire days!-) to the thousands of commuters using daily Muni Metro's busiest line.

Yet, I didn't find any information on a project like this. And whenever I comment it to fellow commuters, I mostly hear "oh, but that would probably be so expensive". :bash:

^^ Perhaps a new tunnel between the East Portal and the Sunset tunnel (like a continuation) would work, for as long as the needed utilities are moved around to make a tunnel extension feasible. The big problem, though, lies with the J-Church connection, and especially for the F-Market streetcars, tunnels are not a good way to operate the historical streetcars through to begin with. Plus, you would need to factor in road widening for Market & Duboce -- Church, which would mean potential rerouting of the 22-Fillmore trolleybus line around the area, as well as a potential long-term closure of the F-Market line southwest of Church. It is a very complicated process since you would need to consider where the portals will be for the J-Church line, as well as managing the tracks for the F-Market connection since the streetcars use Church Street to head to the Green streetcar barn in Balboa Park.

^^ Assuming there is enough space underground, I would think that the N-Judah and J-Church could still be running together until Church&Duboce as they do today, but underground. The N-Judah line then should proceed underground westwards to a "Duboce Park" station (you could even build two entrances to the station, each entrance close to the current stops, that way people wouldn't complain about having to walk further to catch the Muni). The J-Church could then proceed southwards and come overground at some point between Church&Duboce and Church&Market. This stretch of Church St is 200m long (600ft), it's long enough for a new portal to be build and allow the J-Church line to come in and out. Besides, the stretch is (or should be) already currently exclusively used by Muni Metro. The 22-Fillmore doesn't run over the Muni Metro rails, but on the side of those. Cars should in theory do the same. Hence, building a portal on that part of the street would not cause any obstacle to other Muni lines or traffic.

If this ever was to materialize, not only would the N-Judah line save over 5 minutes every time it goes through Duboce Avenue, but probably also the J-Church line would save 1-2 minutes because it would avoid the messy Duboce&Church crossing, where Muni Metro, buses and traffic too often get stuck.

Furthermore it would really help if Muni decided to install some common "remaining time for next train" indication signals both outside Church St (Undeground) Station and the Duboce&Church (overground) stop, where all 5 lines (J L M N & T) would appear. The purpose of this would be to indicate where and what time the next Embarcadero train is going to come. Duboce&Church and Church St Station are less than 5 minutes away on foot, and it would be very useful for passengers to know where they should be going if they want to travel towards the downtown area as soon as possible. It might not make so much sense during the day, when Muni service comes often, but at off-peak periods of time and/or at night, when some lines only run every 20 minutes. This would be improve quality of service to passengers boarding Muni Metro in that area for a tiny amount of money.

everytime I use Muni, some thoughts come to my mind. Things that I don't understand, stuff that should be done better.

We could start by taking away the free parking for Supervisors and the free car/driver for the Mayor and handing each of them a Muni pass. If they ever rode Muni (as Mayor Bloomberg, who could afford to go anywhere he wants by private helicopter, rides the NY subway), they might see the "stuff that should be done better" too.

^^ Assuming there is enough space underground, I would think that the N-Judah and J-Church could still be running together until Church&Duboce as they do today, but underground. The N-Judah line then should proceed underground westwards to a "Duboce Park" station (you could even build two entrances to the station, each entrance close to the current stops, that way people wouldn't complain about having to walk further to catch the Muni). The J-Church could then proceed southwards and come overground at some point between Church&Duboce and Church&Market. This stretch of Church St is 200m long (600ft), it's long enough for a new portal to be build and allow the J-Church line to come in and out. Besides, the stretch is (or should be) already currently exclusively used by Muni Metro. The 22-Fillmore doesn't run over the Muni Metro rails, but on the side of those. Cars should in theory do the same. Hence, building a portal on that part of the street would not cause any obstacle to other Muni lines or traffic.

If this ever was to materialize, not only would the N-Judah line save over 5 minutes every time it goes through Duboce Avenue, but probably also the J-Church line would save 1-2 minutes because it would avoid the messy Duboce&Church crossing, where Muni Metro, buses and traffic too often get stuck.

Furthermore it would really help if Muni decided to install some common "remaining time for next train" indication signals both outside Church St (Undeground) Station and the Duboce&Church (overground) stop, where all 5 lines (J L M N & T) would appear. The purpose of this would be to indicate where and what time the next Embarcadero train is going to come. Duboce&Church and Church St Station are less than 5 minutes away on foot, and it would be very useful for passengers to know where they should be going if they want to travel towards the downtown area as soon as possible. It might not make so much sense during the day, when Muni service comes often, but at off-peak periods of time and/or at night, when some lines only run every 20 minutes. This would be improve quality of service to passengers boarding Muni Metro in that area for a tiny amount of money.

I really like your idea. The issue: how deep is the Market Street Tunnel at Market & Duboce--Church? If such a plan is to materialize, I would like to see either a deepening of the tunnel tubes on the Market Street line while the Church Street and Duboce Street tunnels would be of similar depth to the current Market Street tunnel. That way, trains will not run into each other at the junction of Market and Church... Perhaps separate tunnels for both J-Church and N-Judah would be better, with two separate portals: the N will have its portal with the Sunset Tunnel; the J will have a new portal.

The other thing is, how will you realign the existing rail junction on Market & Church wherein the streetcars operating on the F-line will get into Market for Fisherman's Wharf and out from Market for Balboa Park?

^^ I am not sure you understood what I said. Let me try to make it clearer with an image:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4551/donexm.png

"Everyone's happy":

The F-line can continue to run alongside Market St and from/to Church St to go back to Balboa Park.
The J-line runs underground 100 m (300ft) further than currently. It avoids the crossing of Church St. & Duboce Av., and emerges overground on Church St. somewhere between Duboce Av and Market St. It crosses Market St overground. Hence, there would be no issues whatsoever with the current tunnel under Market St that lines K, L and M use since they would cross on different levels.
Bus 22-Fillmore remains totally unaffected. Since the crossing of Duboce Av and Church St wouldn't include the N and J lines anymore, the reliability of this bus could be improved (this bus often has to wait a few minutes at this point to proceed through this crossing, especially during peak times)
The biggest winner: the N-Judah line runs underground from Van Ness Station without stops to the new Duboce Park Station. From there it continues through the Sunset Tunnel and has its first overground stop on Stanyan St. That way, the N-Judah line runs integrally underground from the Embarcadero to Stanyan St, improving reliability and cutting travel times over 5 minutes on Muni Metro's busiest line. And operating costs do not increase (except for the running and maintenance of the new Duboce Park Station, which is compensated by the closure of two overground stops).

We could start by taking away the free parking for Supervisors and the free car/driver for the Mayor and handing each of them a Muni pass. If they ever rode Muni (as Mayor Bloomberg, who could afford to go anywhere he wants by private helicopter, rides the NY subway), they might see the "stuff that should be done better" too.

I am surprised they don't do that already. Their credibility when they talk about being concerned about public transportation would highly increase.

^^ I am not sure you understood what I said. Let me try to make it clearer with an image:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4551/donexm.png

"Everyone's happy":

The F-line can continue to run alongside Market St and from/to Church St to go back to Balboa Park.
The J-line runs underground 100 m (300ft) further than currently. It avoids the crossing of Church St. & Duboce Av., and emerges overground on Church St. somewhere between Duboce Av and Market St. It crosses Market St overground. Hence, there would be no issues whatsoever with the current tunnel under Market St that lines K, L and M use since they would cross on different levels.
Bus 22-Fillmore remains totally unaffected. Since the crossing of Duboce Av and Church St wouldn't include the N and J lines anymore, the reliability of this bus could be improved (this bus often has to wait a few minutes at this point to proceed through this crossing, especially during peak times)
The biggest winner: the N-Judah line runs underground from Van Ness Station without stops to the new Duboce Park Station. From there it continues through the Sunset Tunnel and has its first overground stop on Stanyan St. That way, the N-Judah line runs integrally underground from the Embarcadero to Stanyan St, improving reliability and cutting travel times over 5 minutes on Muni Metro's busiest line. And operating costs do not increase (except for the running and maintenance of the new Duboce Park Station, which is compensated by the closure of two overground stops).


I fully understand what you're trying to address with the map. But, I don't know how you will achieve a portal on Church Street between Duboce Avenue and Market Street, especially the distance between the two may be too short to create a proper portal, let alone employ the proper switches needed to cross tracks between N-Judah and J-Church. The other, bigger problem is what to do with the current rail alignment on Church Street near Market because you would need a good distance to allow the J-Church trains to rise and descend properly from and to the Market Street Tunnel (with a south portal), and for that to happen would mean closing off intersections (e.g. Church between 15th and 20th Streets to make sure that the F-Market streetcars use the side, street-level tracks while the J-Church would use the new south portal to continue underground. I will do my best to design what I mean with the constraint since it requires extensive studies and modeling.

I fully understand what you're trying to address with the map. But, I don't know how you will achieve a portal on Church Street between Duboce Avenue and Market Street, especially the distance between the two may be too short to create a proper portal,
I think the distance between Church St and the virtual northern end of Dolores St (on Duboce Av) is roughly the same as the distance between Market St and Duboce Av (on Church St). Therefore, if a portal to emerge from the Market Tunnel to street level was possible in the first case, I don't think it should be an issue in the second as the distance/space to build and operate a portal would be on the same in both cases.


let alone employ the proper switches needed to cross tracks between N-Judah and J-Church.
Well, according to my imaginary project, the N-Judah and J-Church lines would join each other at exactly the same point where they do today (that is, Church St & Duboce Av), but underground. I might be being too simplistic, but if it's being done nowadays overground in that limited space, I don't see why it should be any more complex to do it underground. Quite the opposite: nowadays, when the J-Church and N-Judah join each other at Church&Duboce, the drivers are driving manually (and very slowly), watching out for traffic and bus 22-Fillmore. If the J-Church and N-Judah were to join each other at this very same crossing but underground, it is to be expected that both vehicles would already be run by the autopilot (automatic mode), making the confluence of both lines much easier, faster, and less problem-prone.


The other, bigger problem is what to do with the current rail alignment on Church Street near Market because you would need a good distance to allow the J-Church trains to rise and descend properly from and to the Market Street Tunnel (with a south portal), and for that to happen would mean closing off intersections (e.g. Church between 15th and 20th Streets to make sure that the F-Market streetcars use the side, street-level tracks while the J-Church would use the new south portal to continue underground. I will do my best to design what I mean with the constraint since it requires extensive studies and modeling.
I think you are proposing something more ambitious than I am, that is, that the J-Church line drives down Church St underground. It would be great if this were the case, but again, my imaginary project didn't contemplate this scenario. As displayed on my map, at the confluence of 14th st, Church St and Market St, J-Church vehicles would be already overground, running on the current tracks. Hence, no need for any change whatsoever south of Market St.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Muni’s subway woes could be solved with modern network up for approval
By: Will Reisman | 01/14/13 8:51 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Installed in 1970, Muni’s current train management system is disjointed and obsolete. When problems arise, it can take longer for technicians and engineers to pinpoint the issue than to actually fix the glitch, according to John Haley, Muni’s director of transit.

After years of struggling with on-time performance and service disruptions, Muni is now poised to overhaul the aging central control system — responsible for many of the notorious disruptions in the transit system’s underground subway — and replace it with a more reliable and updated network.

The new $24.1 million communications network is up for approval today with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s board of directors, Muni’s governing body.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/01/muni-s-subway-woes-could-be-solved-modern-network-approval#ixzz2IB1ARYSx

Source: www.sfgate.com

Muni delays' economic impact sought
CITY INSIDER
Marisa Lagos, John King
Published 9:19 pm, Monday, January 14, 2013

Supervisor Scott Wiener hasn't had the best luck lately convincing his board colleagues that Muni is in desperate, desperate need of more money to make its service more reliable, so on Tuesday he plans to take a new tack: link any disruption in transit service with cold, hard cash.

Wiener plans on asking for a hearing where Muni would report on all recent service problems, including the transit agency's infamous Metro meltdowns - and the city controller would detail how much money those meltdowns cost in lost productivity.

Following the first hearing, the Municipal Transportation Agency and controller would also be required to furnish monthly reports detailing the same information. We're talking the same info we usually see - on-time performance rates, missed runs, maintenance problems - as well as estimates on how any transit disruptions impact the bottom line of private employers and employees, as well as the city.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Muni-delays-economic-impact-sought-4194027.php#ixzz2IB1QJz6B

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/01/muni-s-subway-woes-could-be-solved-modern-network-approval#ixzz2IB1ARYSx

Looks like MUNI is finally looking into solving the long-recurring problem of its Metro's central control by upgrading and modernizing its system. It may seem to be late for now, but as I always say, it's better to be late than never... hopefully, the price tag for it would be worth every penny to make MUNI Metro a better-run and more organized system. Of course there can be glitches, but hopefully, such occurrences will be reduced soon.

^^I moved to SF in 1982. I'm pretty sure I read about how they modernized that system at least once since then. Guess they lied (I'm shocked, shocked).

T1DEG6BWgp0

^^ Well, that's what you sometimes get with a government-operated transit system... You never know what's going on inside their bureaucratic world. :eek:

snip

Your idea is fairly interesting (even though I've seen it before), but there's still the flaw of having J and N go into the Market St Subway. My pet idea is to instead "railify" both legs of the 22 Fillmore: the J would be extended onto Fillmore leg (Surface in the south, Subway between Geary and Union, and Surface in the Marina), and the N would be extended onto the 16th St leg (Which would be all underground, and would hook up to a Sunset Subway that would emerge onto the N's current route at Judah/22nd). By doing this, you can increase frequency and save time for everyone.

Your idea is fairly interesting (even though I've seen it before), but there's still the flaw of having J and N go into the Market St Subway. My pet idea is to instead "railify" both legs of the 22 Fillmore: the J would be extended onto Fillmore leg (Surface in the south, Subway between Geary and Union, and Surface in the Marina), and the N would be extended onto the 16th St leg (Which would be all underground, and would hook up to a Sunset Subway that would emerge onto the N's current route at Judah/22nd). By doing this, you can increase frequency and save time for everyone.

That's possible. The next step would be how to make the Metro go underground on Fillmore when there is already an underpass at Fillmore & Geary? On top of that, should there be a Muni Metro extension on Geary (and O'Farrell), how will the two future lines avoid an overlap with each other, given that there are two underpasses already on Geary (one on Fillmore, the other on Masonic--Presidio)? Those challenges would need to be addressed first before making such ambitious plans because it isn't that easy to move around existing utility lines in the area already (also consider nearby neighborhoods like Japantown that want to preserve its image and heritage).

That's possible. The next step would be how to make the Metro go underground on Fillmore when there is already an underpass at Fillmore & Geary? On top of that, should there be a Muni Metro extension on Geary (and O'Farrell), how will the two future lines avoid an overlap with each other, given that there are two underpasses already on Geary (one on Fillmore, the other on Masonic--Presidio)? Those challenges would need to be addressed first before making such ambitious plans because it isn't that easy to move around existing utility lines in the area already (also consider nearby neighborhoods like Japantown that want to preserve its image and heritage).

It would go underground North of Geary (Between Geary and Jackson, there's a significant (though not spectacular by our standards) rise in elevation, the South Portal would be between Sutter and Bush, the North portal right at Fillmore and Green), largely to enable LRV's to be able to get between the Fillmore and Marina without a counterbalance.

The need for a Geary LRT is obvious. I think passenger loads (current and future) justify a fully underground route though.

Your idea is fairly interesting (even though I've seen it before), but there's still the flaw of having J and N go into the Market St Subway. My pet idea is to instead "railify" both legs of the 22 Fillmore: the J would be extended onto Fillmore leg (Surface in the south, Subway between Geary and Union, and Surface in the Marina), and the N would be extended onto the 16th St leg (Which would be all underground, and would hook up to a Sunset Subway that would emerge onto the N's current route at Judah/22nd). By doing this, you can increase frequency and save time for everyone.
I see your point. The Market St tunnel is obviously too congested during peak-hours. However, the N-Judah line (the busiest Metro line) is precisely the last one that I would take out of the tunnel. Any of the other ones should go first (actually the big way to think about it would be to build a new parallel Market St tunnel...).

Busides, I fully agree that San Francisco needs more Metro lines (which in cities life SF is the only fast and reliable mean of transportation). However, I don't think that the 22-Fillmore is the most congested line, and probably other lines would benefit more of making them underground. In that very same area I tend to think that 24-Divisadero is a much more used (albeit slower) route than the 22-Fillmore.


The need for a Geary LRT is obvious. I think passenger loads (current and future) justify a fully underground route though.
Oh, totally. It is about time to think big and long-term. The axis is busy enough as to justify this. Nowadays, many cities are building fully automated metro lines (remotely controlled) which allow much higher speeds, reliability and much lower running costs (since those units don't have drivers). It would be much desired that, if any new line was to be built in SF, it would be built this way. In the long run it is a way to save money on operating costs and make life of San Franciscans easier thus improving the city's economic competitive power.

Oh, totally. It is about time to think big and long-term. The axis is busy enough as to justify this. Nowadays, many cities are building fully automated metro lines (remotely controlled) which allow much higher speeds, reliability and much lower running costs (since those units don't have drivers). It would be much desired that, if any new line was to be built in SF, it would be built this way. In the long run it is a way to save money on operating costs and make life of San Franciscans easier thus improving the city's economic competitive power.

Driverless trains may be a great technology (Copenhagen has this technology for a long time, and it is used at all times throughout its Metro network), yet for it to happen, you would need to either upgrade the entire Metro fleet to be compatible to such standards (include the Central Subway and future lines) or you would need to update the entire system that will allow semi-automation along the entire route (including the street portions of all routes). I highly doubt that automation of the entire Muni Metro system would be possible, given that on street operation, drivers would need to stop at stop signs, perform switches so that the train can operate on its desired route, turnaround as necessary at any stop along the way... It can be a complicated, if not disastrous process since most of its street operations involve level crossings and traffic lights, not grade-separated right-of-way, advanced signaling, and the like, things that would require a lot more money and manpower to construct and develop.

^^ That's why I said "all new underground lines".

Paris métro line 14 is fully automatic (and underground), while all others are not. If a new, fully underground line on Geary St. were ever to be built as FDW was suggesting, it could be designed using the latest technology available. Yes, it would be incompatible with other line, but that's no big deal: it would be a mad idea to make any new metro line run with the other ones through the Market St Tunnel, for it's already overused. It is expected that any new line is not to use the Market St Tunnel.

^^ That's why I said "all new underground lines".

Paris métro line 14 is fully automatic (and underground), while all others are not. If a new, fully underground line on Geary St. were ever to be built as FDW was suggesting, it could be designed using the latest technology available. Yes, it would be incompatible with other line, but that's no big deal: it would be a mad idea to make any new metro line run with the other ones through the Market St Tunnel, for it's already overused. It is expected that any new line is not to use the Market St Tunnel.

Sure. The big thing: how will you provide both a turnaround and connections on the Geary line's eastern terminus near Union Square? That area is heavily built up that it can end up competing with the Central Subway to begin with...

^^ If a new entire Geary Line were to be built, I wouldn't place its terminus around Union Square / Montgomery Station. That would be indeed an important transfer station. But the line should continue eastwards and end at the Transbay Terminal, which should become in the long term the main SF transportation hub.

Concerning the turnaround, I would do it the old good way. After the terminus station, just extend a few meters the tracks, enough for the unit to cross to the other track and leave "backwards". Usually you don't wanna do this overground (since having a unit moving forward and backwards is not safe when car traffic is moving around). But in a tunnel it's very common and safe.

^^ That's the best way, yet, how close will those tracks be from the Market Street tunnel should the terminus be at Union Square, or how close will those be from Caltrain and HSR tracks should the terminus be at the Transbay Terminal? That would require extensive studies on how the final route will be built, as well as impacts on future road and rail alignments so that the tracks can be fully ventilated and passengers can find a safe escape route to the nearest roadway should an emergency situation happens either underground or overground. It is no easy task indeed, but it is the process to do so to ensure track, passenger, and personnel safety.

I see your point. The Market St tunnel is obviously too congested during peak-hours. However, the N-Judah line (the busiest Metro line) is precisely the last one that I would take out of the tunnel. Any of the other ones should go first (actually the big way to think about it would be to build a new parallel Market St tunnel...).

I see it differently. MUNI's already implied that the project that they would want to do after the twin headaches of Geary and Stockton are dealt with would be a Subway on 16th St. Also, a lot of the N-Judah's high ridership came from the fact that for years it was the only line to serve the Caltrain Depot on a regular basis, which inflated it's numbers. By not routing the N in Market St Subway, we can jack up it's peak-hour frequency to something like 2-3 min, which would be huge for all the complaints about capacity issues. And keep in mind that a 16th Subway would probably still connect to Mission Bay and Caltrain on it's Eastern End. People wanting to travel downtown can just transfer at Church.

Busides, I fully agree that San Francisco needs more Metro lines (which in cities life SF is the only fast and reliable mean of transportation). However, I don't think that the 22-Fillmore is the most congested line, and probably other lines would benefit more of making them underground. In that very same area I tend to think that 24-Divisadero is a much more used (albeit slower) route than the 22-Fillmore.

Actually, the 22 has almost twice the ridership the 24 has. The 24 just appears to be more heavily used because of the ridiculous crowding the line has in rush hour. The 22 also much higher ridership per mile than the 24 does. (The 22 actually compares well with much of MUNI metro (And many American LRT systems) with it's 3,500-4,000 per mile ridership density)

Oh, totally. It is about time to think big and long-term. The axis is busy enough as to justify this. Nowadays, many cities are building fully automated metro lines (remotely controlled) which allow much higher speeds, reliability and much lower running costs (since those units don't have drivers). It would be much desired that, if any new line was to be built in SF, it would be built this way. In the long run it is a way to save money on operating costs and make life of San Franciscans easier thus improving the city's economic competitive power.

I said that the Geary Line should be underground, not that it should use an entirely different technology. That's actually a pet peeve of mine, completely ignoring standardization and using a million different technologies. (This is why I've got a particular hate-on for eBART) I think the Geary Line should be almost entirely underground, operating in 4-car Consists of the same general type of LRV that MUNI already has. (As in general specs, and not being made by Breda)

^^ That's the best way, yet, how close will those tracks be from the Market Street tunnel should the terminus be at Union Square, or how close will those be from Caltrain and HSR tracks should the terminus be at the Transbay Terminal? That would require extensive studies on how the final route will be built, as well as impacts on future road and rail alignments so that the tracks can be fully ventilated and passengers can find a safe escape route to the nearest roadway should an emergency situation happens either underground or overground. It is no easy task indeed, but it is the process to do so to ensure track, passenger, and personnel safety.

The Geary LRT would probably need to operate over the Central Subway, but under the Market St Subway. Because of this, I've favored a "northern" alignment that would shift over to Pine St and cross the Market St Subway at Embarcadero. I my scenario, the Geary Subway would be under Mission St, to the North of the Caltrain/HSR tracks (And would not cross them).

I see it differently. MUNI's already implied that the project that they would want to do after the twin headaches of Geary and Stockton are dealt with would be a Subway on 16th St. Also, a lot of the N-Judah's high ridership came from the fact that for years it was the only line to serve the Caltrain Depot on a regular basis, which inflated it's numbers. By not routing the N in Market St Subway, we can jack up it's peak-hour frequency to something like 2-3 min, which would be huge for all the complaints about capacity issues. And keep in mind that a 16th Subway would probably still connect to Mission Bay and Caltrain on it's Eastern End. People wanting to travel downtown can just transfer at Church.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel one of the main complains of N-Judah riders between Ocean Beach and Church is that the speed is extremely slow (and hence travel times too long). What you wrote makes a lot of sense, yet I remain skeptic about making so many thousands of people transfer at Church every day: right after a too-slow and too-long ride from the Sunset to Church St, you make them change (hopefully within the same station, I hope?) to other trains that are already packed when reaching Church Station inbound. I suspect far too many people might be tempted to jump back to their cars if they have to do that every day.


Actually, the 22 has almost twice the ridership the 24 has. The 24 just appears to be more heavily used because of the ridiculous crowding the line has in rush hour. The 22 also much higher ridership per mile than the 24 does. (The 22 actually compares well with much of MUNI metro (And many American LRT systems) with it's 3,500-4,000 per mile ridership density)
Extremely interesting. Where do you find those figures? I would have never guessed that.


I said that the Geary Line should be underground, not that it should use an entirely different technology. That's actually a pet peeve of mine, completely ignoring standardization and using a million different technologies. (This is why I've got a particular hate-on for eBART) I think the Geary Line should be almost entirely underground, operating in 4-car Consists of the same general type of LRV that MUNI already has. (As in general specs, and not being made by Breda)
I disagree here. Most western cities around the world have had transporation systems that are now many decades old, and keep building new lines nowadays. I find it quite logic that those new lines are not built using the standards and technology that was used for lines built in 1950.

I don't see any evil in building a new, independent metro line in San Francisco using the latest technology (and hence making its operations faster and cheaper). I agree having compatible technology in the entire network has positive sides, but if 2 or more lines are never to share tracks, having different technologies is not that big of a deal.

I think for instance a much more urgent change of technology towards standardization within the Bay Area would be to establish a plan to get rid of that silly Indian Gauge used by BART and replace it with standard UIC. For instance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel one of the main complains of N-Judah riders between Ocean Beach and Church is that the speed is extremely slow (and hence travel times too long). What you wrote makes a lot of sense, yet I remain skeptic about making so many thousands of people transfer at Church every day: right after a too-slow and too-long ride from the Sunset to Church St, you make them change (hopefully within the same station, I hope?) to other trains that are already packed when reaching Church Station inbound. I suspect far too many people might be tempted to jump back to their cars if they have to do that every day.

Keep in mind, under my scenario, the N-Judah(/16th st) would be underground from it's eastern terminal at 3rd St all the way to 19th Ave. West of 19th Ave, stops would consolidated to about every 4-5 blocks, with High Floor platforms and Traffic Lights installed to enable TSP, which will make the trip much faster. At Church St, the Transfer would be underground, with the N platform right under the existing platform, all you would have to do would be to up/down a staircase/escalator/elevator to change trains. And the M at Church (Which would be only line in the Market St Subway) would be operating 4 car LRV's at 2 Minute Intervals during Rush Hour.

Extremely interesting. Where do you find those figures? I would have never guessed that.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtep/tepdataindx.htm

I disagree here. Most western cities around the world have had transporation systems that are now many decades old, and keep building new lines nowadays. I find it quite logic that those new lines are not built using the standards and technology that was used for lines built in 1950.

I don't see any evil in building a new, independent metro line in San Francisco using the latest technology (and hence making its operations faster and cheaper). I agree having compatible technology in the entire network has positive sides, but if 2 or more lines are never to share tracks, having different technologies is not that big of a deal.

I'm defining compatible here as: Same Power Collection tech, Same Voltage, Same type of Wheels and Tracks, and physically compatible with existing infrastructure. I would a want a potential Geary Subway to use completely driverless vehicles (with the capability for manual takeover if necessary, like Paris Line 14 has) and have articulation between cars to allow for better circulation but that's it. I do envision track connections being necessary between the Geary Line and existing infrastructure for Yard movements.

I think for instance a much more urgent change of technology towards standardization within the Bay Area would be to establish a plan to get rid of that silly Indian Gauge used by BART and replace it with standard UIC. For instance.

Doing that would be more complicated than you might think, and you'd also have to change the Voltage and few other things if wanted to make BART more "Standard". It's something that would require shutting down the system for several years. (I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it would require accounting for a lot of different things, not all of which are terribly obvious.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel one of the main complains of N-Judah riders between Ocean Beach and Church is that the speed is extremely slow (and hence travel times too long). What you wrote makes a lot of sense, yet I remain skeptic about making so many thousands of people transfer at Church every day: right after a too-slow and too-long ride from the Sunset to Church St, you make them change (hopefully within the same station, I hope?) to other trains that are already packed when reaching Church Station inbound. I suspect far too many people might be tempted to jump back to their cars if they have to do that every day.


That part of the N-Judah line can be notoriously slow because it goes through some hilly portions of the Inner Sunset and Haight districts, particularly on Irving Street close to UCSF hospital, as well as regular boarding and alighting along the area, particularly at Carl and Cole Streets (near Haight-Ashbury). Muni has since addressed the long Metro ride with the NX-Judah Express bus line that runs approximately on the N-Judah line (albeit having its inbound terminals at the Financial District close to Montgomery Station), and it runs express on Pine (outbound) and Bush (inbound) that would eventually hit Presidio Avenue, Geary Boulevard, and Park Presidio Boulevard (outbound) or coming from Lincoln Way, Oak Street, and Masonic Avenue (inbound). Its first stop (outbound) or final stop (inbound) is on Judah & 19th Avenue, effectively bypassing most of the slower portion of the N Metro line, and its outbound terminal is the same as the N at Ocean Beach. Basically, the NX was created for the Outer Sunset residents to bypass a good portion of the N-Judah line, and it can be typically crowded too.

Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Negotiations, approvals still await Muni’s plans to extract Central Subway tools
By: Will Reisman | 01/17/13 8:19 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

While Muni negotiates with a North Beach property owner on how it will remove boring tools for the Central Subway project, major planning and approval decisions regarding the controversial extraction process await.

Outrage among residents and merchants over plans to remove the machines at Columbus Avenue led the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni, to propose taking out the equipment at the Pagoda Palace, a derelict former movie theater.

The agency estimated that it would have to find an extra $8 million to purchase or lease the site at Columbus Avenue and Powell Street. There also was talk of the theater potentially becoming a station for the neighborhood, should Muni buy the building.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/01/negotiations-approvals-still-await-muni-s-plans-extract-central-subway-#ixzz2ITNahGoK

That part of the N-Judah line can be notoriously slow because it goes through some hilly portions of the Inner Sunset and Haight districts, particularly on Irving Street close to UCSF hospital, as well as regular boarding and alighting along the area, particularly at Carl and Cole Streets (near Haight-Ashbury). Muni has since addressed the long Metro ride with the NX-Judah Express bus line that runs approximately on the N-Judah line (albeit having its inbound terminals at the Financial District close to Montgomery Station), and it runs express on Pine (outbound) and Bush (inbound) that would eventually hit Presidio Avenue, Geary Boulevard, and Park Presidio Boulevard (outbound) or coming from Lincoln Way, Oak Street, and Masonic Avenue (inbound). Its first stop (outbound) or final stop (inbound) is on Judah & 19th Avenue, effectively bypassing most of the slower portion of the N Metro line, and its outbound terminal is the same as the N at Ocean Beach. Basically, the NX was created for the Outer Sunset residents to bypass a good portion of the N-Judah line, and it can be typically crowded too.

I am well aware of the existence of the NX-Judah Express. I should go and ride it at some point actually.

Honestly, I think that the very existence of that line proves my point: the truly problematic part of the N-Judah line is not the Market Street Tunnel, but its route west of Buena Vista Park...!

I am well aware of the existence of the NX-Judah Express. I should go and ride it at some point actually.

Honestly, I think that the very existence of that line proves my point: the truly problematic part of the N-Judah line is not the Market Street Tunnel, but its route west of Buena Vista Park...!

Well, rider note: the NX is operated with the oldest bus type in the Muni fleet, the Gillig Phantom. I have never seen the route being operated with a Neoplan, NABI, or Orion VII before, and it can be a bumpy ride too. ;)

Outbound, board the NX at Market & Sansome (next to Citigroup Center); inbound, you'll be let off at Bush & Montgomery.

Muni is over capacity, and the agency is looking at how to encourage people who could easily walk or bike to their destinations to do that instead, clearing room on the buses and trains.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SF-home-for-disabled-vets-is-dedicated-4237198.php

Someone should teach them basic economics. Raise the price--soon demand will match supply.

But their ideas like free rides for healthy teens--the very ones who should be walking or riding a bike--will only make the problem worse.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SF-home-for-disabled-vets-is-dedicated-4237198.php

Someone should teach them basic economics. Raise the price--soon demand will match supply.

But their ideas like free rides for healthy teens--the very ones who should be walking or riding a bike--will only make the problem worse.

Two questions:

- How high do you think MUNI fares should be, and if that's the case, how much extra revenue (estimated) do you think the City will raise annually from it?

- There will be families that live below the family line, and many of those youths prefer riding the bus over walking for many reasons... if you're not for the free MUNI for youth, what other alternative/s would you provide so that youths and teens can be encouraged to walk or bike to where they want to go? On top of that, how will you address the overcrowding to begin with if it persists on many, many lines?

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SF-home-for-disabled-vets-is-dedicated-4237198.php

Someone should teach them basic economics. Raise the price--soon demand will match supply.

I don't think you meant this literally, did you.

You can't pretend to apply "basic economics" to sectors where there is a public monopoly (and a good reason for that).


That being said, I do believe that Muni passes could be more expensive if that meant having the capacity to improve services. As I stated earlier, I am frontally opposed to this initiative to provide young riders (or any group for that matter) with free passes. Whoever uses it MUST contribute to its running costs within reason. Otherwise, as you rightly point out, people that would otherwise be walking or riding bikes will start riding Muni "just because it's free". And that's not good.

I don't think you meant this literally, did you.

You can't pretend to apply "basic economics" to sectors where there is a public monopoly (and a good reason for that).

That being said, I do believe that Muni passes could be more expensive if that meant having the capacity to improve services. As I stated earlier, I am frontally opposed to this initiative to provide young riders (or any group for that matter) with free passes. Whoever uses it MUST contribute to its running costs within reason. Otherwise, as you rightly point out, people that would otherwise be walking or riding bikes will start riding Muni "just because it's free". And that's not good.

I am with you on that one, but, the bigger question is this: how much is a reasonable fare for Muni, especially for adults? What is a good fare range for Muni?

I don't think you meant this literally, did you.

You can't pretend to apply "basic economics" to sectors where there is a public monopoly (and a good reason for that).


That being said, I do believe that Muni passes could be more expensive if that meant having the capacity to improve services. As I stated earlier, I am frontally opposed to this initiative to provide young riders (or any group for that matter) with free passes. Whoever uses it MUST contribute to its running costs within reason. Otherwise, as you rightly point out, people that would otherwise be walking or riding bikes will start riding Muni "just because it's free". And that's not good.

To throw my two cents into the discussion, I find myself increasingly disenchanted with the User fee model of funding infrastructure, and would like something less volatile than Gas and Sales taxes funding my Public Transit.

Crossposting from other thread:

Okay, I got it done, here's the big SF map that took me a week to get done.

http://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/SFConcept

I don't think you meant this literally, did you.

You can't pretend to apply "basic economics" to sectors where there is a public monopoly (and a good reason for that).


That being said, I do believe that Muni passes could be more expensive if that meant having the capacity to improve services. As I stated earlier, I am frontally opposed to this initiative to provide young riders (or any group for that matter) with free passes. Whoever uses it MUST contribute to its running costs within reason. Otherwise, as you rightly point out, people that would otherwise be walking or riding bikes will start riding Muni "just because it's free". And that's not good.

I would prefer to see Muni properly run and funded to provide the service the city needs. But if, in fact, at present fare levels more people want to ride than can be accommodated, then perhaps some increase in fares would be appropriate and it could be used to increase service which would also help.

In truth, I would certainly prefer Muni to make sure every rider actually pays before seeing them raise fares. I don't really think there IS an excess demand among those willing to actually pay to ride, but we all know the busses are packed with non-payers who board in the rear (and some who don't have to pay by city policy like the "youth").

I would prefer to see Muni properly run and funded to provide the service the city needs. But if, in fact, at present fare levels more people want to ride than can be accommodated, then perhaps some increase in fares would be appropriate and it could be used to increase service which would also help.

In truth, I would certainly prefer Muni to make sure every rider actually pays before seeing them raise fares. I don't really think there IS an excess demand among those willing to actually pay to ride, but we all know the busses are packed with non-payers who board in the rear (and some who don't have to pay by city policy like the "youth").

Frankly, I see this absurd vein-popping over POP to be a pointless witch hunt. You aren't ever going to catch all fare evaders, and fare evasion isn't really all that big of a deal in the first place in terms of revenue lost versus the amount of enforcement that would be required to bring it down to zero. And Frankly, I board in the back all the time, and most of the people I see there have valid fare.

Frankly, I board in the back all the time, and most of the people I see there have valid fare.

Bet you aren't riding the 31, 5, or 14. It would be a money-maker to get fair inspectors on the lines where it's an issue--you wouldn't need that many, really. As it is, going through the T-loin it's common to have someone standing by the back door opening it for non-payers at every stop. Sometimes the drivers refuse to pull into the stops because they figure no one boarding in that area is going to pay--they stop mid-block to let people out. Just another game of Muni cat and mouse.

Instead, they put them on the streetcars and LRVs where fair evasion is minor. Just another data point in the wretched history of Muni incompetence.

Frankly, I see this absurd vein-popping over POP to be a pointless witch hunt. You aren't ever going to catch all fare evaders, and fare evasion isn't really all that big of a deal in the first place in terms of revenue lost

I feel like a sucker every time I pay. I guess you don't believe in the "broken window theory of crime" that was used to successfully in New York.

I feel like a sucker every time I pay. I guess you don't believe in the "broken window theory of crime" that was used to successfully in New York.

Okay, responding to your first post:

-At best, increased fare inspection is cost-neutral, and most of the time it costs more than would be gained from decreased fare evasion. And then there's the huge social backlash to consider; the last MUNI attempted the very type of "crackdown" you advocated, it's such a huge backlash that MUNI ended backpedaling to the point where they decided to do universal POP.

Responding to your second post:

-No, I'm not a believer in Broken Windows. New York's decrease in crime during those years had more to do with improved economic conditions and gentrification than anything else.

And going off-topic, did you see my proposed idea for MUNI above?

I am with you on that one, but, the bigger question is this: how much is a reasonable fare for Muni, especially for adults? What is a good fare range for Muni?


Just for comparison purposes - the Phoenix area pub trans (Valley Metro) fare is pretty high. If you board a bus at a general street side stop, the fare is $5.50 for an all day pass. If you purchase the pass at a station or terminal, it's $3.50. There are various discounted fares (youth, senior, disabled) that are half price. How does this compare to the overall fare structure for Muni?

P.S. For the record, I have lived in S.F. and depended on Muni for my transportation.

^^ Really? Huh... interesting. I thought it's a unified fare if you buy a day pass on board the bus or at a transit center... but that's a pretty novel idea. And by the way, having Clipper on board all Muni vehicles sure really helps many commuters get around the City quickly and efficiently. The only thing that bugs me sometimes is the number of people who just forget to tag on their Clipper cards when boarding through the rear of a bus. The all-door boarding system is fantastic... it's just that there aren't enough fare inspectors to check everyone's fare payment methods.

^^ Really? Huh... interesting. I thought it's a unified fare if you buy a day pass on board the bus or at a transit center... but that's a pretty novel idea. And by the way, having Clipper on board all Muni vehicles sure really helps many commuters get around the City quickly and efficiently. The only thing that bugs me sometimes is the number of people who just forget to tag on their Clipper cards when boarding through the rear of a bus. The all-door boarding system is fantastic... it's just that there aren't enough fare inspectors to check everyone's fare payment methods.


The reasoning behind the higher fare on board is to "save time". The powers-that-be decided that charging more would encourage people to buy at terminals and/or stations. The big problem with that is the VERY limited number of terminals outside the DT area. They COULD somewhat resolve this issue by placing more ticket machines at the major hubs, i.e. the Mall transitions where a majority of the routes run to/from. They won't do this because it would cut down on revenue generated by "on-the-spot" fare purchases. Smart on their part, sad for the occasional rider who isn't near a terminal or station.

-No, I'm not a believer in Broken Windows. New York's decrease in crime during those years had more to do with improved economic conditions and gentrification than anything else.

At the risk of defending a moderate Republican like Guilliani, who did contribute many good ideas for NYC, on paper, much the same could be said re: improved economic conditions certainly gentrification in SF. Yet SF's seen little or no decrease in crime, if not an increase.

Not to mention all the broken windows, broken buses/trains, broken elevators, broken street furniture, "broke" people panhandling for a quarter. no make it dollar, on every corner, all more generally called "Out of Service."

More accurately known as "The City' that just refuses to follow basic common sense." Indeed, 'The City" seems to have trouble borrowing tried & true good ideas from other cities.

I am amazed at how few cameras are set up in soma, the tenderloin, and other high crime areas. More video evidence of petty crime will be a cheap alternative to the better solution, simply hiring more cops to pound the streets. Coming from NYC, I am amazed at how much petty crime is present in SF.

I am amazed at how few cameras are set up in soma, the tenderloin, and other high crime areas. More video evidence of petty crime will be a cheap alternative to the better solution, simply hiring more cops to pound the streets. Coming from NYC, I am amazed at how much petty crime is present in SF.

Remember that MUNI in itself is a very large public transportation agency that handles not just sidewalk and parking safety and enforcement: there are also some cases of violent crime on board transit vehicles as well, especially on certain lines that run through seedy neighborhoods like the Loin, Bayview, Hunters Point, Sunnydale, and some others... even some of the bus cameras may or may not work either, thus, such incidents nowadays are being taken using smartphone cameras. MUNI has had financial problems of late, so it cannot provide many of the needed safety features to adequately fight criminal activity... it even announces on buses to report any vandalism incidents too.

Remember that MUNI in itself is a very large public transportation agency that handles not just sidewalk and parking safety and enforcement: there are also some cases of violent crime on board transit vehicles as well, especially on certain lines that run through seedy neighborhoods like the Loin, Bayview, Hunters Point, Sunnydale, and some others... even some of the bus cameras may or may not work either, thus, such incidents nowadays are being taken using smartphone cameras. MUNI has had financial problems of late, so it cannot provide many of the needed safety features to adequately fight criminal activity... it even announces on buses to report any vandalism incidents too.

MUNI really needs to get a lot more serious about monitoring & controlling crime within the system. The drivers try to do their best. However, based on the heavy incidence of crime without any timely response, & few suspects convicted, they need to invest in a lot more in better cameras & surveliance, etc.

MUNI really needs to get a lot more serious about monitoring & controlling crime within the system. The drivers try to do their best. However, based on the heavy incidence of crime without any timely response, & few suspects convicted, they need to invest in a lot more in better cameras & surveliance, etc.

If that's the scenario, then should there be partnerships between Muni and several law enforcement agencies, including the City Police, Sheriff, and CHP, as well as other relevant agencies that encompass the service area of the transit agencies? That way, criminal activity can be lessened on Muni vehicles and stations, and with a more efficient law enforcement, policies can be enforced on a stricter basis.

If that's the scenario, then should there be partnerships between Muni and several law enforcement agencies, including the City Police, Sheriff, and CHP, as well as other relevant agencies that encompass the service area of the transit agencies? That way, criminal activity can be lessened on Muni vehicles and stations, and with a more efficient law enforcement, policies can be enforced on a stricter basis.

Very Good thoughts. Sad to say though, the attitudes and political priorities re: crime control in this "Left Coast" City seem diametrically opposed to Richard Guillani's very successful "Broken Windows" era in the Big Apple during the 1990.

To get something done in a place with the attudes like SF, always seems to take an awful tragedy like when that German lady tourist was killed several years ago just a few blocks from Powell Street to do anything. And even then, I don't recall any serious efforts at prosecutions re: the suspects.

Apparently MUNI wants to grade-separate the M in around Stonestown/Parkmerced:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/19th-CommunityMeeting1-Handout.pdf

I like N1 combined with S2 or S3.

Apparently MUNI wants to grade-separate the M in around Stonestown/Parkmerced:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/19th-CommunityMeeting1-Handout.pdf

I like N1 combined with S2 or S3.

Here's an obvious issue: how about the area on Ocean Avenue, where it remains as a regular light rail crossing, as well on West Portal Avenue? That would be truly interesting though to watch, especially that congestion on 19th Avenue will be reduced dramatically if such grade separation can be done.

Here's an obvious issue: how about the area on Ocean Avenue, where it remains as a regular light rail crossing, as well on West Portal Avenue? That would be truly interesting though to watch, especially that congestion on 19th Avenue will be reduced dramatically if such grade separation can be done.

MUNI just redid St Francis Circle and Ocean Ave not too long ago. (Though MUNI has plans to modify stops on Ocean as a part of the TEP)

Going back to the project, I like the N1 alignment the best, but would want the station moved somewhat to the Southwest for easier access to Stonestown. (As it stands, accessing Transit from the Mall can be a bitch, and the Mall has more parking than it needs, so it can easily give up some space without much in the way of harm.) The S2 and S3 alignments would take the M out of clusterfuck that is the intersection at 19th/Junipero Serra. S2 (which looks like the cheaper option) would do what I was going to recommend myself (Bridge Arch St over 19th Ave), while S3 would go even farther in speeding up the M by using a slope on the northside of Brotherhood Way.

the attitudes and political priorities re: crime control in this "Left Coast" City seem diametrically opposed to Richard Guillani's very successful "Broken Windows" era in the Big Apple during the 1990.


As I said several times already, step number 1 would be to make a serious effort to make everyone who boards transit pay the fare. This one step might actually keep some criminals off transit entirely. And of course the fare inspectors or other enforcement agents could do double duty with other sorts of criminals. But it's basically the Giuliani approach--if you don't care whether people even pay the legal fare to board, why should you care what else they do while onboard.

And here's another thing. In NY it is very common to see a regular city cop walking through subway stations checking large packages randomly or just standing on the platform. I've NEVER seen that in SF. BART Police sometimes, but NEVER a regular cop. I have seen them get on a bus and ride a couple of stops but even that is rare.

As I said several times already, step number 1 would be to make a serious effort to make everyone who boards transit pay the fare. This one step might actually keep some criminals off transit entirely. And of course the fare inspectors or other enforcement agents could do double duty with other sorts of criminals. But it's basically the Giuliani approach--if you don't care whether people even pay the legal fare to board, why should you care what else they do while onboard.

And here's another thing. In NY it is very common to see a regular city cop walking through subway stations checking large packages randomly or just standing on the platform. I've NEVER seen that in SF. BART Police sometimes, but NEVER a regular cop. I have seen them get on a bus and ride a couple of stops but even that is rare.

And once again, I will point out that fare evasion isn't as big if a deal as you seem to think it is.

And once I will point out that fare evasion isn't as big if a deal as you seem to think it is.

Well, tell me: what's your take on fare evasion within Muni? How rampant can it be, and why do you think it exists?

Well, tell me: what's your take on fare evasion within Muni? How rampant can it be, and why do you think it exists?

Personally, I think fare evasion is a red herring to the other, far more pressing issue of MUNI's Capacity Crunch that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.

Personally, I think fare evasion is a red herring to the other, far more pressing issue of MUNI's Capacity Crunch that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.

Of course that's easy for those who don't have to try balancing the MUNI budget. If MUNI eases fare collection & inspection, the City will just end up stealing more funds from the rest of the Bay Area & other California agencies. I'm glad to see the MUNI fare inspectors hard at work, and the irresponsible fare jumpers having to pay their fare share in fines. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Of course that's easy for those who don't have to try balancing the MUNI budget. If MUNI eases fare collection & inspection, the City will just end up stealing more funds from the rest of the Bay Area & other California agencies. I'm glad to see the MUNI fare inspectors hard at work, and the irresponsible fare jumpers having to pay their fare share in fines. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Frankly, I've made it clear that I'm not okay with the status quo, and I'm than prepared to pony up whatever it fucking takes to make MUNI a world-class Transportation system. Fare Inspection is fine as it is, putting anymore into it would be akin to reviving the Culture Bus.

Frankly, I've made it clear that I'm not okay with the status quo, and I'm than prepared to pony up whatever it fucking takes to make MUNI a world-class Transportation system. Fare Inspection is fine as it is, putting anymore into it would be akin to reviving the Culture Bus.

I understand your concerns, my friend. I know you're pissed off at Muni, but you're not alone. The big thing, though, is that Muni is funded, not only by the City (thanks to it being a part of the SFMTA), but also from State and Federal funds as well, and it being owned by the City means that Muni runs on a huge deficit every time because it factors in so many things, most notably pensions and retirement, maintenance costs, and managing its employees, among other things.

Perhaps a bigger funding may be necessary for vehicle and station maintenance alone, but it means we need to weigh in priorities: do we want higher fares to shoulder the increasing maintenance bills, do we want to lessen trips to trim down costs which can translate to bigger savings, or do we want to ignore vehicular problems now that will escalate costs later on for maintaining them?

Frankly, I've made it clear that I'm not okay with the status quo, and I'm than prepared to pony up whatever it fucking takes to make MUNI a world-class Transportation system. Fare Inspection is fine as it is, putting anymore into it would be akin to reviving the Culture Bus.

Of course the status quo at MUNI is simply playing blind & letting the fair cheats jump on. The status quo doesn't cut it anymore. San Francisco's going to have take responsibility & quit leaning on the rest of our taxpayers. Its past time for everyone to pay their fair share.

Of course the status quo at MUNI is simply playing blind & letting the fair cheats jump on. The status quo doesn't cut it anymore. San Francisco's going to have take responsibility & quit leaning on the rest of our taxpayers. Its past time for everyone to pay their fair share.

Wait, what? What do you mean? How do you define Muni's status quo?

Wait, what? What do you mean? How do you define Muni's status quo?

Just keeping busting the budget with stuff that it can't afford. And then expecting to be bailed out by the MTC or the FTA, etc. Which of course means the taxpayers.

Just keeping busting the budget with stuff that it can't afford. And then expecting to be bailed out by the MTC or the FTA, etc. Which of course means the taxpayers.

OK? Well, Muni is owned by the City and County of San Francisco (thanks to it being a part of the SFMTA), so what you're trying to imply is that the budget for Muni is a big problem in itself already, such that when it spends, it spends like a fountain with endless water and when it dries out, it runs to the MTC or the FTA or Caltrans? I don't think that's what it is... Supposedly, Muni gets its funds from the City government and other sources to pay for vehicle and station maintenance, as well as pay for its operators and personnel. Yes, it may be funded by taxpayers, but there are other funding sources as well.

How is Muni mismanaged financially, and what will it take to alleviate its "fiscal woes" that you're saying?

Of course the status quo at MUNI is simply playing blind & letting the fair cheats jump on. The status quo doesn't cut it anymore. San Francisco's going to have take responsibility & quit leaning on the rest of our taxpayers.

That is something simply that should not happen at all, especially not with the deck as stacked towards roads as it is now. No mode of Transportation in this country is truly unsubsidized.

Just keeping busting the budget with stuff that it can't afford. And then expecting to be bailed out by the MTC or the FTA, etc. Which of course means the taxpayers.

You really don't understand how the MTC and FTA work, do you?

OK? Well, Muni is owned by the City and County of San Francisco (thanks to it being a part of the SFMTA), so what you're trying to imply is that the budget for Muni is a big problem in itself already, such that when it spends, it spends like a fountain with endless water and when it dries out, it runs to the MTC or the FTA or Caltrans? I don't think that's what it is... Supposedly, Muni gets its funds from the City government and other sources to pay for vehicle and station maintenance, as well as pay for its operators and personnel. Yes, it may be funded by taxpayers, but there are other funding sources as well.

How is Muni mismanaged financially, and what will it take to alleviate its "fiscal woes" that you're saying?

MUNI (SFMTA) is a department of the city of San Francisco. The SFMTA was created partly so that it's budget could be "lock boxed" from the board of Supervisors. (Back in the 90's MUNI's budget was decided by the board, and weariness over raising new revenue led to MUNI's budget being cut, which led to the tragic collapse in maintenance and in turn the MUNI Meltdown of 1998. This situation also happened in 1981, when MUNI had a bus replacement crisis) Frankly, much of MUNI's Monetary Problems were the result of The Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cutting several taxes and fees that funded transit in the state, while offering no replacement to them, while Former Mayor Gavin Newsom generally spent his entire term ignoring the issue, save for the few times where he tried score political points with it. (And Willie Brown before him was just as bad)

MUNI (SFMTA) is a department of the city of San Francisco. The SFMTA was created partly so that it's budget could be "lock boxed" from the board of Supervisors. (Back in the 90's MUNI's budget was decided by the board, and weariness over raising new revenue led to MUNI's budget being cut, which led to the tragic collapse in maintenance and in turn the MUNI Meltdown of 1998. This situation also happened in 1981, when MUNI had a bus replacement crisis) Frankly, much of MUNI's Monetary Problems were the result of The Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cutting several taxes and fees that funded transit in the state, while offering no replacement to them, while Former Mayor Gavin Newsom generally spent his entire term ignoring the issue, save for the few times where he tried score political points with it. (And Willie Brown before him was just as bad)

So, with that in mind, what would be a way to ease the budget squeeze Muni has endured for many, many years? And do you think another breakdown may happen, now that yet another vehicle replacement program is now underway?

So, with that in mind, what would be a way to ease the budget squeeze Muni has endured for many, many years? And do you think another breakdown may happen, now that yet another vehicle replacement program is now underway?

No, another major breakdown for the buses is unlikely, because isn't as old as it was at the time of the last MUNI Meltdown. However, the constant problems that the Breda LRV's have gone through might mean that end up getting replaced prematurely like the Boeings did. (Given that MUNI doesn't have enough LRV's on the Market St Subway, and that Central Subway requires MUNI to have more LRV's, I'm expecting MUNI to start ordering the LRVIII's later on this decade.)

No, another major breakdown for the buses is unlikely, because isn't as old as it was at the time of the last MUNI Meltdown. However, the constant problems that the Breda LRV's have gone through might mean that end up getting replaced prematurely like the Boeings did. (Given that MUNI doesn't have enough LRV's on the Market St Subway, and that Central Subway requires MUNI to have more LRV's, I'm expecting MUNI to start ordering the LRVIII's later on this decade.)

Do you have any ideas on what Muni might order for their LRVs to replace the squeaky and noisy Breda trains? I mean, I want something that will not only look nice and fresh, but also efficient and has low maintenance costs.

Do you have any ideas on what Muni might order for their LRVs to replace the squeaky and noisy Breda trains? I mean, I want something that will not only look nice and fresh, but also efficient and has low maintenance costs.

The LRV here in Phoenix are manufactured here in Japan ....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/METRO_Light_Rail_Tri-City_Station.jpg


This is an EXTREMELY rare 3 car consist. The vast majority of time they are 2 car consists. These cars are quiet, efficient, and easy to maintain.

http://www.kinkisharyo.com/media/pdf/phoenix.pdf

Do you have any ideas on what Muni might order for their LRVs to replace the squeaky and noisy Breda trains? I mean, I want something that will not only look nice and fresh, but also efficient and has low maintenance costs.

Well I've got a few ideas:

-Not ordering from Breda (Should be top priority)

-LRV's should be longer

-All side seating

-No pop out doors

The LRV here in Phoenix are manufactured here in Japan ....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/METRO_Light_Rail_Tri-City_Station.jpg


This is an EXTREMELY rare 3 car consist. The vast majority of time they are 2 car consists. These cars are quiet, efficient, and easy to maintain.

http://www.kinkisharyo.com/media/pdf/phoenix.pdf

That would work. However, those are mostly on-street operation, true? Muni Metro runs underground as well, meaning that the floor clearance needed should be in line with the platforms... And, I suspect that the vehicles will remain high-floored (with steps) unless someone creates a plan to create "low-level" platforms, similar to the ones in the UK for the Market Street subway (and it might end up redesigning all other high-level station. That way, the trains will be much more accessible to nearly everyone, especially those in wheelchairs, without the need of adjusting the steps up and down, to lessen boarding and disembarking delays.

Well I've got a few ideas:

-Not ordering from Breda (Should be top priority)

-LRV's should be longer

-All side seating

-No pop out doors

Very splendid ideas. To make LRVs longer means that all stations that will be operated with longer trains need to be extended (especially the on-street and ROW stops); that's going to be extra expense for Muni, but it will mean increased passenger capacity. Someone in the SFMTA should look into your ideas and work into a compromise.

Very splendid ideas. To make LRVs longer means that all stations that will be operated with longer trains need to be extended (especially the on-street and ROW stops); that's going to be extra expense for Muni, but it will mean increased passenger capacity. Someone in the SFMTA should look into your ideas and work into a compromise.

Let me clarify that "longer trains" line. What I meant was rather having 75-foot long trains running in one or two car consists, we operate single trains that are like 160 ft long.

You really don't understand how the MTC and FTA work, do you?

Sad to say, I understand all too well.

No, another major breakdown for the buses is unlikely, because isn't as old as it was at the time of the last MUNI Meltdown. However, the constant problems that the Breda LRV's have gone through might mean that end up getting replaced prematurely like the Boeings did. (Given that MUNI doesn't have enough LRV's on the Market St Subway, and that Central Subway requires MUNI to have more LRV's, I'm expecting MUNI to start ordering the LRVIII's later on this decade.)

The problems with the Boeings & later the Bredas were functions of very poor political project management within what was then the PUC/MUNI.

OK? Well, Muni is owned by the City and County of San Francisco (thanks to it being a part of the SFMTA), so what you're trying to imply is that the budget for Muni is a big problem in itself already, such that when it spends, it spends like a fountain with endless water and when it dries out, it runs to the MTC or the FTA or Caltrans?

More or less that's how MUNI functions. Traditionally, the staffs of both (sometimes BART too) play games of musical chairs.

Back in the 90's MUNI's budget was decided by the board, and weariness over raising new revenue led to MUNI's budget being cut, which led to the tragic collapse in maintenance and in turn the MUNI Meltdown of 1998.

That of course, I'm sure you must remember happened under Cruz Control.

This situation also happened in 1981, when MUNI had a bus replacement crisis)

MUNI did indeed suffer a serious crises in 1981, when they were focused mostly on MUNI Metro Subway start-up. MUNI had to get by leasing "old look" junk buses from LA, etc. That should have been a lesson in going for incremental fleet replacement rather than just waiting for the whole fleet to crash & then having to beg for more funding. So what has changed & what has been learned from that experience? Three decades hence, MUNI seems rather close to being in the same situation.

MUNI did indeed suffer a serious crises in 1981, when they were focused mostly on MUNI Metro Subway start-up. MUNI had to get by leasing "old look" junk buses from LA, etc. That should have been a lesson in going for incremental fleet replacement rather than just waiting for the whole fleet to crash & then having to beg for more funding. So what has changed & what has been learned from that experience? Three decades hence, MUNI seems rather close to being in the same situation.

Actually MUNI is shifting over to Incremental Replacement right now. MUNI's replacing the NABI's this year, the New Flyer ETBs Next Year, and will start on replacing the Neoplans in 2015. MUNI's own documents indicate that they're going to replace every single bus that is currently running (Even the Orion VII Hybrids that came in 2007) by the end of this decade.

Actually MUNI is shifting over to Incremental Replacement right now. MUNI's replacing the NABI's this year, the New Flyer ETBs Next Year, and will start on replacing the Neoplans in 2015. MUNI's own documents indicate that they're going to replace every single bus that is currently running (Even the Orion VII Hybrids that came in 2007) by the end of this decade.

Well lets see what actually happens. MUNI & its consultants are always great when it comes to producing plans & programs. However, we've got to wait & see what actually happens. Yeah, those NABIs have to go soon. Their wheezing engines are beginning to remind me of those old Macks.

Well lets see what actually happens. MUNI & its consultants are always great when it comes to producing plans & programs. However, we've got to wait & see what actually happens. Yeah, those NABIs have to go soon. Their wheezing engines are beginning to remind me of those old Macks.

The first of the New Flyer Hybrids will be arriving in a couple of months, with the entire order of 62 vehicles here by the end of the summer. Given the need for testing, the New buses will probably start filtering into service during late summer/fall. (Fun Fact, at one point when MUNI was breaking in the Orion VII hybrids during 2007, one of the buses layer over for a little while in front of the house that I was living in at the time, and I got to take a peek inside before they entered regular service. I remember at gawking at the Blue Colored Seats) As for New Flyer Artic ETB's, MUNI kind of has to move quickly on that if they want to be able to attach themselves the order Seattle is making.

OK? Well, Muni is owned by the City and County of San Francisco (thanks to it being a part of the SFMTA), so what you're trying to imply is that the budget for Muni is a big problem in itself already, such that when it spends, it spends like a fountain with endless water and when it dries out, it runs to the MTC or the FTA or Caltrans?

Where did funds for the youth free fares come from? Last I checked, it came from the MTC, a regional coordinating agency.

Personally, I think fare evasion is a red herring to the other, far more pressing issue of MUNI's Capacity Crunch that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.

Are you condoning fare evasion? Sorry but I can't take anyone who condones fair evasion seriously. It's illegal, & needs to be enforced, which the MUNI staff seems to be trying their best to do.

You really don't understand how the MTC and FTA work, do you?

What would make you think that. I've been watching their work for decades!

You really don't understand how the MTC and FTA work, do you?


In truth, I understand only too well!

Where did funds for the youth free fares come from? Last I checked, it came from the MTC, a regional coordinating agency.

Here's the deal: the Free Fare for Youth is a pilot program that is funded, not just by the MTC, but also funding from the SFMTA as well because it is the originating agency. Remember: nothing is really free anymore; someone else should pay or subsidize it. If the program works, then well and good; it will be subsidized in some way. If the program fails, it will be discontinued.

Well I've got a few ideas:

-Not ordering from Breda (Should be top priority)

-No pop out doors

Agree with you on the no pop out doors!!! What a silly, dumb idea.

However, as far as the Breda cars generally, it wasn't necesarily primarily Breda fault. There was a team of MUNI staff that made dozens of flights to Milano during the 1990s, suppoosidly to oversight the procurement.

Obviously, they just didn't know what they were doing. You get what you ask for. The Bredas seem to have work out well for quite a few other agencies.

Frankly, I've made it clear that I'm not okay with the status quo, and I'm than prepared to pony up whatever it fucking takes to make MUNI a world-class Transportation system. Fare Inspection is fine as it is, putting anymore into it would be akin to reviving the Culture Bus.


No comparison. The Cultural Bus was a silly idea. Controlling fare evasion makes very good sense, thus MUNI, to its credit, seems to be tightening up on that.

Agree with you on the no pop out doors!!! What a silly, dumb idea.

However, as far as the Breda cars generally, it wasn't necesarily primarily Breda fault. There was a team of MUNI staff that made dozens of flights to Milano during the 1990s, suppoosidly to oversight the procurement.

Obviously, they just didn't know what they were doing. You get what you ask for. The Bredas seem to have work out well for quite a few other agencies.

No, Breda is notorious internationally for it's poor track record with projects, Seattle had to deal with constant failures of it's Dual Mode Buses that were from Breda, Copenhagen's Metro used Breda-built cars that had an extremely rough teeth in, Both Boston and Los Angeles canceled their orders from Breda part way through because their cars were so bad, and Buffalo contracted Breda to do rebuilds of it's LRV's which never even started because Breda handled the project so poorly. And these are only the ones I can name off the top of my head. I'm sure if you go around this site you'll find dozens of people here who know about even more of Breda's (Though it's kind of sad, because Breda was only company that consistently able to go toe to toe with the Siemens/Kinkisharyo LRV Duopoly) horror stories.

Now, you forgot to comment on what was probably my biggest point, the longer vehicles with all side seating. What's your thoughts on that?

And BTW, you can use the Multi-quote button so you don't have to make five consecutive posts to respond to everything I say.

No comparison. The Cultural Bus was a silly idea. Controlling fare evasion makes very good sense, thus MUNI, to its credit, seems to be tightening up on that.

I remember the 74X (Culture Bus), and it was lightly used. I would've seen it operated instead with the 30-footer Orion VII rather than the 40-footer version since it goes through many cultural attractions which would naturally attract fewer passengers than a typical line.

That would work. However, those are mostly on-street operation, true? Muni Metro runs underground as well, meaning that the floor clearance needed should be in line with the platforms... And, I suspect that the vehicles will remain high-floored (with steps) unless someone creates a plan to create "low-level" platforms, similar to the ones in the UK for the Market Street subway (and it might end up redesigning all other high-level station. That way, the trains will be much more accessible to nearly everyone, especially those in wheelchairs, without the need of adjusting the steps up and down, to lessen boarding and disembarking delays.

Correct, they are street level only here in Phoenix. Metro light rail here is not very efficient at all, essentially due to having to obey traffic laws just like anyone else driving in the city. I'm very familiar with Muni LR, having used it quite a bit back in the late 80's. The best comparison I can make between how Muni LR and Metro LR operates is the N-Judah line in the Sunset district.

If I'm not mistaken (it's been a while since I rode the LR here) they do have the steps built in, they just don't have occasion to use them at the stations. I believe they were built that way for safety evacuation reasons, should a train be between stations and have to be emptied.

That would work. However, those are mostly on-street operation, true? Muni Metro runs underground as well, meaning that the floor clearance needed should be in line with the platforms... And, I suspect that the vehicles will remain high-floored (with steps) unless someone creates a plan to create "low-level" platforms, similar to the ones in the UK for the Market Street subway (and it might end up redesigning all other high-level station. That way, the trains will be much more accessible to nearly everyone, especially those in wheelchairs, without the need of adjusting the steps up and down, to lessen boarding and disembarking delays.

MUNI's gradually been moving towards a High-Floor standard for the LRT system since the 1990's (When MUNI built the High Floor platforms at Stonestown and SF State), and I'm expecting them to continue with this little by little over time. (For Example, I'm expecting every one of the stations built/rebuilt for the Parkmerced project to be High Floor)

MUNI's gradually been moving towards a High-Floor standard for the LRT system since the 1990's (When MUNI built the High Floor platforms at Stonestown and SF State), and I'm expecting them to continue with this little by little over time. (For Example, I'm expecting every one of the stations built/rebuilt for the Parkmerced project to be High Floor)

I wanna ask: how come MUNI chose the high-floor platforms for its stations rather than sticking with the low-floor to begin with? I mean, light rail vehicles nowadays are more low-floored than high-floored to begin with... :cripes: That would be quite a challenge to find a suitable high-floored replacement for the Breda trains because I suspect that most light rail trains are low-floored to start with to improve accessibility.

Correct, they are street level only here in Phoenix. Metro light rail here is not very efficient at all, essentially due to having to obey traffic laws just like anyone else driving in the city. I'm very familiar with Muni LR, having used it quite a bit back in the late 80's. The best comparison I can make between how Muni LR and Metro LR operates is the N-Judah line in the Sunset district.

If I'm not mistaken (it's been a while since I rode the LR here) they do have the steps built in, they just don't have occasion to use them at the stations. I believe they were built that way for safety evacuation reasons, should a train be between stations and have to be emptied.

Those gangway steps are only used in case of emergencies when a train needs to be evacuated. It is more of a safety feature rather than just an "accessory"... I wonder though if the Valley Metro LR type would be compatible with MUNI Metro's, as well as extending any existing platforms to accommodate longer trains.

I wanna ask: how come MUNI chose the high-floor platforms for its stations rather than sticking with the low-floor to begin with? I mean, light rail vehicles nowadays are more low-floored than high-floored to begin with... :cripes: That would be quite a challenge to find a suitable high-floored replacement for the Breda trains because I suspect that most light rail trains are low-floored to start with to improve accessibility.

MUNI Metro was designed and built during a time when Low-Floor LRV's didn't exist yet, so what's been going on is simply a pattern of MUNI keeping with an already established standard. While almost all new LRV systems are built Low-Floor these days, there's still a considerable market for High-Floor LRV's. Any one of the major LRV manufacturers

Those gangway steps are only used in case of emergencies when a train needs to be evacuated. It is more of a safety feature rather than just an "accessory"... I wonder though if the Valley Metro LR type would be compatible with MUNI Metro's, as well as extending any existing platforms to accommodate longer trains.

Phoenix's LRV's (As well as related Kinkisharyo models in San Jose, Dallas, and Jersey City), are actually slightly narrower than MUNI's LRV's, but also are taller to the point where they wouldn't be able to fit under the Pantographs in the Underground stations.

MUNI Metro was designed and built during a time when Low-Floor LRV's didn't exist yet, so what's been going on is simply a pattern of MUNI keeping with an already established standard. While almost all new LRV systems are built Low-Floor these days, there's still a considerable market for High-Floor LRV's. Any one of the major LRV manufacturers



Phoenix's LRV's (As well as related Kinkisharyo models in San Jose, Dallas, and Jersey City), are actually slightly narrower than MUNI's LRV's, but also are taller to the point where they wouldn't be able to fit under the Pantographs in the Underground stations.

I didn't realize our LRV's were that much taller ... but now that you mention it, it kinda stinks that Muni couldn't use the same ones. I'm sure KS could possibly build them shorter ... I don't think it would affect the overall viability of the trains...

I didn't realize our LRV's were that much taller ... but now that you mention it, it kinda stinks that Muni couldn't use the same ones. I'm sure KS could possibly build them shorter ... I don't think it would affect the overall viability of the trains...

They're not that much taller, only by a matter of inches. It's just that the Pantograph wire comes down really low in the Market st subway, and most Low Floor vehicles use the roof as space for vital equipment.

All right, so we will now have a comparison test between Vally Metro's LR vehicles and Muni Metro's vehicles...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni/Muni%20Metro/DSC02767.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni/Muni%20Metro/IMG9530_zpsbbc4d2de.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni/Muni%20Metro/DSC09413.jpg

All right, so we will now have a comparison test between Vally Metro's LR vehicles and Muni Metro's vehicles...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni/Muni%20Metro/DSC02767.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni/Muni%20Metro/IMG9530_zpsbbc4d2de.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j117/wishfulanthony/SF%20Transport/San%20Francisco%20Muni/Muni%20Metro/DSC09413.jpg

Looking at these photos, it appears that the electric bar (I don't know the proper term for it) on top essentially lays flat while in the subway. Is that correct?

What brand are the current Muni cars?

General dimensions for Kinkysharo LRV in Phoenix:

Width 8.7 ft (2654 mm)
Height 12.2 ft (3718 mm)
Ceiling Height 8.08 ft (2463 mm)
Floor Height (TOR) Low floor 14 in (355 mm) High floor 35 in (889 mm)

How does this compare with the current Muni LRV?

Here's the link to Breda's website, with the info you want:

http://www.ansaldobredainc.com/light-rail-vehicles/san-francisco

General dimensions for Kinkysharo LRV in Phoenix:

Width 8.7 ft (2654 mm)
Height 12.2 ft (3718 mm)
Ceiling Height 8.08 ft (2463 mm)
Floor Height (TOR) Low floor 14 in (355 mm) High floor 35 in (889 mm)

How does this compare with the current Muni LRV?
Width 8.7 ft (2654 mm)
Height 12.2 ft (3718 mm)
Ceiling Height 8.08 ft (2463 mm)
Floor Height (TOR) Low floor 14 in (355 mm) High floor 35 in (889 mm)

How does this compare with the current Muni LRV?

Breda:
Length over coupler faces 22860 mm (900 inch)
Max overall car width 2744 mm (108 inch)
Max height, equipment included 3505 mm (138 inch)
Car floor height from t.o.r 1193.8 mm (47 inch)

So it looks like a height difference of 213 mm. I don't know how to translate metric to standard, but I believe that's roughly 8 inches. I suppose that could be a problem in the subway portion of Muni Metro.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/03/12/muni-to-start-rolling-out-62-new-low-floor-hybrid-buses-this-month/

Looks the we'll be getting to know our brand new New Flyers real soon.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/03/12/muni-to-start-rolling-out-62-new-low-floor-hybrid-buses-this-month/

Looks the we'll be getting to know our brand new New Flyers real soon.

Indeed... hopefully, those will be used on bus lines from the Kirkland Division where the NABI 416s will be retired soon.

^^Where can I buy a dozen indelible markers?

I don't know how to translate metric to standard, but I believe that's roughly 8 inches. I suppose that could be a problem in the subway portion of Muni Metro.

Whenever you want to do that just Google--for example, google "feet to meters" or "fahrenheidt to centigrade". You''ll get a site that makes it easy.

But if you are the do--it-yourself type, there's 2.54 cm to an inch

^^Where can I buy a dozen indelible markers?

:rofl: Why? Are you going to make the new seats colorful again with brand new graffiti? You know that Muni is becoming serious with its anti-vandalism campaign, don't you? If someone catches you vandalizing any bus, he or she can text the four-digit bus code to a special number...

If someone catches you vandalizing any bus, he or she can text the four-digit bus code to a special number...

I must have heard the mechanical announcement of that number hundreds of times--and I can't remember it. I doubt anybody else can either.

I must have heard the mechanical announcement of that number hundreds of times--and I can't remember it. I doubt anybody else can either.

:lol: I've heard of that too, hundreds of times, in all three languages too. Fortunately, when a bus approaches a stop, the message stops and replaces it with a stop announcement. If a bus is stuck in traffic, though, you would hear the entire announcement... sometimes, bus drivers just skip the Chinese and Spanish parts!

I truly hope, though, that these new buses will finally have air conditioning, as well as the capability of holding three bikes instead of just two.

Is it just me, or have they changed the announcements they make on the Muni Metro platforms for approaching trains?

I truly hope, though, that these new buses will finally have air conditioning,


Traditionally MUNI hasn't ordered air conditioned buses owing to the locally climate, so I wouldn't count on it.

Is it just me, or have they changed the announcements they make on the Muni Metro platforms for approaching trains?

Really? Which station/s did you hear the new announcements? And by the way, I hope that the new overhead electronic boards (complete with LCD colors, next train times, and number of cars) will be installed really soon: I am growing tired of the small all-red electronic signboards, some of them malfunctioning too!

Traditionally MUNI hasn't ordered air conditioned buses owing to the locally climate, so I wouldn't count on it.

Well, I understand that the climate can be cooler in San Francisco. But, during the summer, it can be balmy, if not downright hot. I mean, AC Transit shares a similar reasoning with Muni as to why their buses have no air conditioning… and the agency will get brand new New Flyer LF40 buses with air con.

Well, I understand that the climate can be cooler in San Francisco. But, during the summer, it can be balmy, if not downright hot. I mean, AC Transit shares a similar reasoning with Muni as to why their buses have no air conditioning… and the agency will get brand new New Flyer LF40 buses with air con.

AC Transit isn't getting New Flyer LF40's, rather they're getting Gillig Advantages.

AC Transit isn't getting New Flyer LF40's, rather they're getting Gillig Advantages.

Oh sorry, my mistake... I got carried away with New Flyer and Gillig buses! Must be a bit tired... But I am really hopeful that the New Flyer Xcelsior buses will come soon to Muni (XD40) and AC Transit (XD60). But I remember it's Gillig LF40 for AC Transit, in which I actually saw doing a test run near Lake Merritt last week.

Well, I understand that the climate can be cooler in San Francisco. But, during the summer, it can be balmy, if not downright hot. I mean, AC Transit shares a similar reasoning with Muni as to why their buses have no air conditioning… and the agency will get brand new New Flyer LF40 buses with air con.

MUNI tends to be more tradition bound than AC Transit. Consider too that AC Transit covers a much broader service area, including more coverage in the East Bay with some warmer climes than you'd find in "The City".

^^ True. However, can the tradition be modified to allow air conditioning on buses because it only gets warmer in the City, especially during the summer? I mean, what's a bearable temperature and humidity to keep the bus windows open to begin with? Sure, some routes may not require air conditioning, especially the ones going through the Sunset and Ocean Beach, but other areas get so much heat and humidity because Twin Peaks act as a natural barrier for fog.

^^ True. However, can the tradition be modified to allow air conditioning on buses because it only gets warmer in the City, especially during the summer? I mean, what's a bearable temperature and humidity to keep the bus windows open to begin with? Sure, some routes may not require air conditioning, especially the ones going through the Sunset and Ocean Beach, but other areas get so much heat and humidity because Twin Peaks act as a natural barrier for fog.

Every year, there are usually a few stiffling hot days each year. However othwerwise the lack of A/C doesn't seem to be a huge problem, particularly when, barring problems, at least one of the two MUNI Metro units is usually decently cooled, if not all the buses.

I'm certainly not opposed to AC on Muni. However, my sense is that were MUNI buses to go with AC, mainteance of the AC would simply add to MUNI already long list of equipment backlogs & wows. Makes sense though that an agency called AC Transit would go with AC!

The main issue that I wondering about is the placement of the Clipper Units in front. I thought MUNI fucked when they had them installed of the right-side of the front door, rather than on the left side. (Which allowed for faster boarding by splitting the lines of Cash payers and Clipper users)

The main issue that I wondering about is the placement of the Clipper Units in front. I thought MUNI fucked when they had them installed of the right-side of the front door, rather than on the left side. (Which allowed for faster boarding by splitting the lines of Cash payers and Clipper users)

That only holds true for the Orion VII buses... the Neoplans and NABIs have those machines to the left side of the buses by the front door. With the all-doors scheme now, that Clipper problem is lessened since passengers can tag on at either the front or rear door of the bus. The bigger problem is that sometimes, the machines themselves don't work at random times!

That only holds true for the Orion VII buses... the Neoplans and NABIs have those machines to the left side of the buses by the front door. With the all-doors scheme now, that Clipper problem is lessened since passengers can tag on at either the front or rear door of the bus. The bigger problem is that sometimes, the machines themselves don't work at random times!

I was referring specifically to the Orion VII's when I made that comment. Though preferably, I'd like to see Clipper readers on both sides of all the doors on MUNI buses and trains.

I was referring specifically to the Orion VII's when I made that comment. Though preferably, I'd like to see Clipper readers on both sides of all the doors on MUNI buses and trains.

I don't think that's possible... Four units in a vehicle could mean signal interference when two units are directly across from each other. I'm already happy though that Muni has two machines on board buses and four on board Muni Metro trains.

THEY'RE HERE:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/04/03/say-hello-to-munis-new-buses/

I'm glad MUNI didn't decide to change the type of seating, though the new seating arrangement will be welcome given the crowding.

^^ :applause: I hope that will be introduced progressively on the 28 and 28L (19th Avenue) bus lines because those are prone to serious overcrowding. And I truly love how the bus has kept its original seating plan. However, does it have working air conditioning? I hope those do because I want to stay cool when the summer heat kicks in. And I love how roomy it looks on the interior, as well as how the electronic message signs on the sides are located. Definitely a welcome change to the NABI buses.

City preps launching pad for monster subway boring machine

Mom Chung is headed for San Francisco and nothing is going to be the same.

Next week, the huge, 300-foot-long tunnel boring machine, named for the country’s first American-born female Chinese physician, will arrive in town. Within weeks, it will be ready to start drilling one of the tunnels for the city’s controversial Central Subway Project, which will link the Caltrain station at Fourth and King streets with Chinatown.

City transit officials already have built an underground vault where the monster machine can be assembled and put to work:

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/21/12/21/4498502/6/premium_article_headline.jpg
In a cool, concrete-lined underground vault, 50 feet below Fourth Street, San Francisco transit officials are waiting for Mom Chung.


http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2013/04/20/city-preps-launching-pad-for-monster-subway-boring-machine/

I want to stay cool when the summer heat kicks in.

You mean 68F instead of 62F?

You mean 68F instead of 62F?

:lol: no. I mean, the outside temperature could be 62F, but the humidity can be off the roof (at around 80%)... and remember that the western part of the City may be cooler than the eastern part. ;)

THEY'RE HERE:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/04/03/say-hello-to-munis-new-buses/

I'm glad MUNI didn't decide to change the type of seating, though the new seating arrangement will be welcome given the crowding.

Not so good for me I guess:

for the tens of thousands of disabled and senior passengers who take Muni, advocates say that the unfriendly design of the low-floor buses present yet another accessibility obstacle. And with the agency contemplating the purchase of 200 more in the coming years, the problem could become even worse.

Introduced in 2007, the 86 low-floor buses lack boarding steps, so they don’t have to “kneel” — the slow hydraulic process that buses use to lower their clearance for senior and disabled passengers.

But because they don’t kneel, the buses are actually higher off the ground, and thus harder for seniors and disabled passengers to board, according to Bob Planthold, an advocate and member of the Senior Action Network.

Planthold also complained that the hand railings on the buses are poorly designed and don’t allow passengers to get enough leverage to pull themselves on board. Finally, the buses’ narrower and shallower interiors make it more difficult for wheelchair users to maneuver around and to see their upcoming stop out the window, he said.

The disabled and senior community first raised these concerns 3½ years ago, yet Muni still went through with the rollout of its 86 low-floor buses . . . .


Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2011/02/new-low-floor-muni-buses-bring-some-passengers-down#ixzz2R7ZvG8HD

^^ Question then: would you rather see the New Flyer Xcelsior buses run the 19-Polk service or the 28-19th Avenue more? I mean, the design may not be that ergonomic for seniors and the handicapped, but that, I must say, is progress since the NABI buses to me look way too old and dated already.

^^Me? I'm in the "a bus is a bus is a bus" camp. I'll haul myself onto it one way or another. It'll be nice if there's no graffiti on the ceiling. I don't care how "old and dated" they look as long as they run and are clean. After cable cars, the PCC trolleys on Market St. are my favorite SF ride.

Everything in SF looks "old and dated" (even the people . . . like me). It's our style.

Central Subway tunneling machines set to arrive in San Francisco; digging expected to start in June
By: Will Reisman | 04/22/13 4:00 AM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/ScreenSnapz026_zps51e25ca7.jpg
MIKE KOOZMIN/THE S.F. EXAMINER
Tunnel-boring machines for the Central Subway project will be dropped into this launch box below Fourth Street

Tunnel-boring machines for Muni’s Central Subway project are set to arrive in San Francisco this week, with digging expected to begin in June.

The two massive machines — which each are more than 300-feet long — will take about four to six weeks to assemble once they arrive from China, according to Sarah Wilson, an engineer on the project. Once built, the machines will be dropped into a launch box below Fourth Street, where they will start drilling at about 40 feet per day, Wilson said.

Crews of six to nine people will man the massive machines, which will dig as deep as 150 feet below the surface. The machines are expected to reach their extraction site in North Beach next April, about 10 months after the start of work.

Along with heralding the arrival of its tunnel-boring machines, Muni recently announced the return of bids for a massive construction project. All three bids for the work, which includes the construction of three Central Subway stations, came back significantly higher than the agency’s original estimate.

Tutor Perini submitted the lowest offer at $840 million and will likely be awarded the work, according to Central Subway project manager John Funghi. Muni projected the work would only cost $720 million to $750 million, although Tutor Perini’s bid still falls within budget . . . .

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/04/central-subway-tunneling-machines-set-arrive-san-francisco-digging-expe#ixzz2RDMGJig8

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/04/central-subway-tunneling-machines-set-arrive-san-francisco-digging-expe#ixzz2RDMGJig8


Just imagine, this boondoogle's just beginning.

And already, as was the headline in the April 23 Examiner, MUNI's already $100 million over on contract 1300.

Here it's just begun, & MUNI's already has to dig into its contingency fund.

Not at all surprised to see the overruns. But this BIG so EARLY in the project?

Makes one wonder how many buses or trains MUNI WON'T have the funds to put on the street.

Just imagine, this boondoogle's just beginning.

And already, as was the headline in the April 23 Examiner, MUNI's already $100 million over on contract 1300.

Here it's just begun, & MUNI's already has to dig into its contingency fund.

Not at all surprised to see the overruns. But this BIG so EARLY in the project?

Makes one wonder how many buses or trains MUNI WON'T have the funds to put on the street.

As the articles all point out, this is THE major contract. There should not be any more overruns based on bids in excess of what was expected but there remains a substantial amount in the contingency fund. Presumably that's for use in case of changes in the engineering or designs caused by unexpected problems found as work progresses. There's still a good chance the project will come in within its planned budget.

^^ Well then, if you seriously don't like the Central Subway boondoggle, so be it. It has already been approved and funded a long time ago, just wait until it's done and you be the judge if the money is actually well-spent or not. I can already sense that the loads on the 8x, 30, and 45 will move to the Central Subway from far away, allowing buses to be reassigned to other routes if necessary. On top of that, with a faster and more efficient way to go between Chinatown and Visitacion Valley, that'd mean ridership could go very high quickly.

^^ Well then, if you seriously don't like the Central Subway boondoggle, so be it. It has already been approved and funded a long time ago,

And so kindly share with us when was the extra $100 million overrun approved & funded. A hundred million over budget? That's just on one contract--so far. Means a $100 million less for other projects, including more critical MUNI or FTA requirements.

^^Me? I'm in the "a bus is a bus is a bus" camp. I'll haul myself onto it one way or another. It'll be nice if there's no graffiti on the ceiling. I don't care how "old and dated" they look as long as they run and are clean. After cable cars, the PCC trolleys on Market St. are my favorite SF ride.

Wouldn't it be fantastic & timesaving if all the Muni vehicles speeded along like those PCCs! And hard to believe but true. Their from 60 years back at that!

Wouldn't it be fantastic & timesaving if all the Muni vehicles speeded along like those PCCs! And hard to believe but true. Their from 60 years back at that!

Remember though that the PCCs operate along with mixed traffic along Market Street, with right-of-way areas located along The Embarcadero and a small portion of 18th Street near the Castro Street turnaround. It is more of a hybrid Types A and C configuration, in which while those have exclusive right-of-way, they also need to obey traffic signals as well... not unless we mix in BART in this picture.

And so kindly share with us when was the extra $100 million overrun approved & funded. A hundred million over budget? That's just on one contract--so far. Means a $100 million less for other projects, including more critical MUNI or FTA requirements.

The planned funding for the project includes several hundreds of millions for "contingencies" of which this $100 million will use maybe 1/3. This "just one contract" is THE contract to dig the tunnels, put in the rails, build the stations and for the electronic control system. There's really very little remaining to contract for so the likelihood of more contracts overbudget by anything like this amount is nil.

The planned funding for the project includes several hundreds of millions for "contingencies" of which this $100 million will use maybe 1/3.

So we could be looking at up to $300 million in MUNI Central Subway overruns?

.....With the resulting financial crunch when comes to ordering new vehicles, or defered mainteance.

Remember though that the PCCs operate along with mixed traffic along Market Street

Even still, the PCCs even manage remarkably high speed operation along Market, in mixed & heavy traffic, which is a plus for MUNI.