daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 17th, 2012, 04:27 AM   #541
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Well, Kearny is one way from Market through Columbus, sure. But Stockton is a two-way from Sutter through the tunnel all the way up to Fisherman's Wharf. And Stockton Street is a major thoroughfare through Chinatown, which is why Muni chose to send the trolley lines through Stockton Street instead of Kearny so that the 30 and 45 lines run through Stockton Street where the main commercial area is located.
Were Stockton a wider artery, MUNI could've installed double overhead wiring for better service, as on Market. However, there's obviously no extra room on Stocktown, thus the Keary option.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 17th, 2012, 04:59 AM   #542
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviews

Were Stockton a wider artery, MUNI could've installed double overhead wiring for better service, as on Market. However, there's obviously no extra room on Stocktown, thus the Keary option.
If you send the trolley buses through Kearny that would mean like a two-block difference for people to walk between inbound and outbound buses. Plus, Stockton Street has already been used for a long time as a bus route (thus the 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton lines). Plus, it has been determined as a major bus corridor for MUNI. So why change the inbound routing when you can just enhance services along Stockton? The 8x already runs through Kearny Street inbound, and it's stuffed most of the time, so why send 30 and 45 there?
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 05:20 AM   #543
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
If you send the trolley buses through Kearny that would mean like a two-block difference for people to walk between inbound and outbound buses. Plus, Stockton Street has already been used for a long time as a bus route (thus the 30-Stockton and 45-Union/Stockton lines). Plus, it has been determined as a major bus corridor for MUNI. So why change the inbound routing when you can just enhance services along Stockton? The 8x already runs through Kearny Street inbound, and it's stuffed most of the time, so why send 30 and 45 there?
Why not just have two-way service on Kearny? Northbound just continues straight from Third. Southbound turns at Sutter & then back to Stockton, & from their the regular route down to SOMA.

Not that stupid bypass going down Mason (albeit it can used for emerg-bypass) with that dumb sharp jack knife turn into Market & then into Fourth.

Also there's PLENTY of room for additional MUNI service along Columbus to serve the northern tail of Chinatown, plus North Beach.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 05:29 AM   #544
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviews

Why not just have two-way service on Kearny? Northbound just continues straight from Third. Southbound turns at Sutter & then back to Stockton, & from their the regular route down to SOMA.

Not that stupid bypass going down Mason (albeit it can used for emerg-bypass) with that dumb sharp jack knife turn into Market & then into Fourth.

Also there's PLENTY of room for additional MUNI service along Columbus to serve the northern tail of Chinatown, plus North Beach.
Look: Third Street northeast of King Street (near AT&T Park) has been specifically designed as a one-way street heading Northwest, and its parallel street, Fourth Street, runs in the opposite direction. And the street layout continues north of Market Street that the one-way pattern continues smoothly to Kearny and from Stockton Street.

City bus lines aren't really meant to run in "diversions" or "detours" to serve a particular business or feature. Those are built using mostly straight lines (although, of course, one-way street patterns force bus routes to move with the flow), and the ideal bus line is a two-way line on just one street (or for a maximum of three to four streets) like the 14-Mission or 38-Geary. Such system promotes high-frequency services and more commuter choices. For the case of Stockton, it runs through an interesting set of streets: the 30 and 45 share the areas south of Columbus Avenue, while in the north, the 30 operates through North Point Street via Van Ness to and from Chestnut, while the 45 heads west on Union Street from Washington Square. If you were to design a bus line, you'd make sure that it covers a lot of areas with high concentrations of residences, commercial areas, and industry.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 06:01 AM   #545
612bv3
Registered User
 
612bv3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,712
Likes (Received): 101

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Central Subway was deal made by SF politicians so they could demolish the Embarcadero Freeway or something along that line.
__________________
My BART Fantasy Maps: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4.1 | Circle | Other Maps
612bv3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 06:38 AM   #546
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Look: Third Street northeast of King Street (near AT&T Park) has been specifically designed as a one-way street heading Northwest, and its parallel street, Fourth Street, runs in the opposite direction. And the street layout continues north of Market Street that the one-way pattern continues smoothly to Kearny and from Stockton Street.
Oh, correction. Third & Fourth are just fine one-ways &
Third also transitions right into Kearny, which could continue right up onto Columbus, etc.

What's difficult (for the drivers) is that sharp Jacknife Mason-Market-Fifth Street turn. Which is just a bypass around the proposed boondoogle.

Should it happen.

Last edited by bayviews; October 17th, 2012 at 06:44 AM.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 06:44 AM   #547
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by 612bv3 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Central Subway was deal made by SF politicians so they could demolish the Embarcadero Freeway or something along that line.
Correct, a deal was cut with the then mayor after the 1989 Earthquake for the subway.

The problem was the subway costs continued to escalate.

It went up to $800 million & now its like $1.6 Billion.

And who knows how much it could go up from there.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 06:46 AM   #548
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

I generally avoid making statements about the Central Subway, as it's always a very polarizing issue, but I feel compelled to post today. I have to say that I find this bickering over the Central Subway quite amusing... The only legitimate concerns to have against the project are that it's too expensive or that we should be prioritizing daily operations over major capital investments. For the latter folk, I give you the TEP.

The problem is that a lot of opponents are clouding the issue with concerns that are not legitimate, one of the worst being that the money "should have gone towards a Geary subway", which is just more of the provincialism and local interests that they accuse of the Central Subway project. As someone who has been riding Muni his entire life, I support the Central Subway. It just so happens that the Central Subway is moving forward now, but I would also support a major capital investment along Geary. Just remember, though, that it was NIMBYs that killed the possibility of both BART and LRT along Geary, which is why you guys are getting a "rail-ready" BRT corridor instead. I can understand why you might be frustrated if you were a regular 38 / 38L rider, but don't throw compassion and logic to the winds and make the Central Subway your personal scapegoat for your Muni gripes.

Opponents are also way too-focused on the "Central Subway" as a singular project, attacking it as some sort of "gift" to Chinatown while completely ignoring the fact that it's actually just the second phase of the Third Street LRT project, which is creating a modern light rail corridor along the eastern spine of San Francisco and expanding the Muni Metro network into an actual grid network, as opposed to the single trunk line we have right now under Market Street.

Most people won't realize this because I think the most vocal opponents to the Central Subway project don't even live anywhere near the corridor and have no appreciation for the current transit context or the vision behind the project, but the majority of the remaining chunks of redevelopable land within city limits (outside of Treasure Island) are in the eastern and southeastern areas of San Francisco, and these developments aren't small peanuts either:
  • Visitacion Valley: 1,600 DUs
  • Executive Park: 1,600 DUs
  • Candlestick Point / Hunters Point Shipyard: 10,500 DUs; 2.5 MM SF green / tech R&D; 885,000 SF retail
  • Pier 70: 3 MM SF commercial
These are just the active plans that haven't broke ground yet... There's also the ongoing build-out of Mission Bay (huge!), the Central Corridor project (specifically designed to take advantage of the alignment along Fourth Street), gradual redevelopment along the Third Street corridor and in SOMA (e.g., Moscone Center redevelopment), and, in the long term, potential redevelopment of the massive Brisbane Baylands and Cow Palace sites.

These developments will need a quick and efficient transit solution to get to and from Downtown, and the Third Street LRT (together with the Central Subway) is a great way to do that... The Chinatown aspect is only one part of the project... The alignment on Fourth Street will save time for everyone heading into Downtown by avoiding the circuitous route via The Embarcadero. Not to mention the potential to expand it at the north end into North Beach, Fisherman's Wharf, and the Marina in the future (just imagine surface light rail along Lombard! ) and at the south end to Balboa Park BART via Geneva. But it's virtually impossible to build this all at once... It needs to be done in phases, and the Central Subway is just that—one phase of a much larger project. If you can't support this type of capital investment, then you're basically saying that we should never have built any of the existing Muni Metro lines. Ask yourself: Would the current combined ridership on the K / L / M from the southwestern districts of the city justify a Twin Peaks Tunnel if we were building it new today?

But for anyone who still insists on pushing a Muni Metro line along Geary "over" the Central Subway, just remember that the most likely solution for such a project on Geary would be virtually identical to the Third Street LRT + Central Subway... Surface light rail in the outer parts of the corridor, with a tunnel in Downtown. Just pray nobody comes trying to stall your tunnel through the Tenderloin with some absurd claim like these Save MUNI idiots have done with the Central Subway.

Do I think the Central Subway is overpriced?
Yes. But I think the merits are there, and I can definitely see the greater vision of the project. If Central Subway opponents are that concerned about pork spending in transit, they should be focusing their time and effort on trying to stop eBART ($500 million) or BART to Livermore ($800 million), not the Central Subway.
__________________
San Francisco
Japan 2013; Japan 2011
: Tōkyō I, II, III (Kamakura), IV (Yokohama), V; Ōsaka I (+Kyōto +Kōbe), II (Kyōto), III (Nara); Hiroshima; Fukuoka; Nagasaki; Kita-Kyushu + Shimonoseki; Nikkō
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 06:52 AM   #549
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo
I generally avoid making statements about the Central Subway, as it's always a very polarizing issue, but I feel compelled to post today. I have to say that I find this bickering over the Central Subway quite amusing... The only legitimate concerns to have against the project are that it's too expensive or that we should be prioritizing daily operations over major capital investments. For the latter folk, I give you the TEP.

The problem is that a lot of opponents are clouding the issue with concerns that are not legitimate, one of the worst being that the money "should have gone towards a Geary subway", which is just more of the provincialism and local interests that they accuse of the Central Subway project. As someone who has been riding Muni his entire life, I support the Central Subway. It just so happens that the Central Subway is moving forward now, but I would also support a major capital investment along Geary. Just remember, though, that it was NIMBYs that killed the possibility of both BART and LRT along Geary, which is why you guys are getting a "rail-ready" BRT corridor instead. I can understand why you might be frustrated if you were a regular 38 / 38L rider, but don't throw compassion and logic to the winds and make the Central Subway your personal scapegoat for your Muni gripes.

Opponents are also way too-focused on the "Central Subway" as a singular project, attacking it as some sort of "gift" to Chinatown while completely ignoring the fact that it's actually just the second phase of the Third Street LRT project, which is creating a modern light rail corridor along the eastern spine of San Francisco and expanding the Muni Metro network into an actual grid network, as opposed to the single trunk line we have right now under Market Street.

Most people won't realize this because I think the most vocal opponents to the Central Subway project don't even live anywhere near the corridor and have no appreciation for the current transit context or the vision behind the project, but the majority of the remaining chunks of redevelopable land within city limits (outside of Treasure Island) are in the eastern and southeastern areas of San Francisco, and these developments aren't small peanuts either:
[*]Visitacion Valley: 1,600 DUs[*]Executive Park: 1,600 DUs[*]Candlestick Point / Hunters Point Shipyard: 10,500 DUs; 2.5 MM SF green / tech R&D; 885,000 SF retail[*]Pier 70: 3 MM SF commercial

These are just the active plans that haven't broke ground yet... There's also the ongoing build-out of Mission Bay (huge!), the Central Corridor project (specifically designed to take advantage of the alignment along Fourth Street), gradual redevelopment along the Third Street corridor and in SOMA (e.g., Moscone Center redevelopment), and, in the long term, potential redevelopment of the massive Brisbane Baylands and Cow Palace sites.

These developments will need a quick and efficient transit solution to get to and from Downtown, and the Third Street LRT (together with the Central Subway) is a great way to do that... The Chinatown aspect is only one part of the project... The alignment on Fourth Street will save time for everyone heading into Downtown by avoiding the circuitous route via The Embarcadero. Not to mention the potential to expand it at the north end into North Beach, Fisherman's Wharf, and the Marina in the future (just imagine surface light rail along Lombard! ) and at the south end to Balboa Park BART via Geneva. But it's virtually impossible to build this all at once... It needs to be done in phases, and the Central Subway is just that‒one phase of a much larger project. If you can't support this type of capital investment, then you're basically saying that we should never have built any of the existing Muni Metro lines. Ask yourself: Would the current combined ridership on the K / L / M from the southwestern districts of the city justify a Twin Peaks Tunnel if we were building it new today?

But for anyone who still insists on pushing a Muni Metro line along Geary "over" the Central Subway, just remember that the most likely solution for such a project on Geary would be virtually identical to the Third Street LRT + Central Subway... Surface light rail in the outer parts of the corridor, with a tunnel in Downtown. Just pray nobody comes trying to stall your tunnel through the Tenderloin with some absurd claim like these Save MUNI idiots have done with the Central Subway.

Do I think the Central Subway is overpriced?
Yes. But I think the merits are there, and I can definitely see the greater vision of the project. If Central Subway opponents are that concerned about pork spending in transit, they should be focusing their time and effort on trying to stop eBART ($500 million) or BART to Livermore ($800 million), not the Central Subway.
Well said. Well done.

I, too, use Muni frequently, and I nearly always walk through downtown to check out the progress on the Central Subway and observe bus after bus full of passengers on the 8x, 30, and 45 lines along Stockton Street. It's one of my daily rituals to pass by the Financial District and Union Square to people watch, and I'm very hopeful that once the Central Subway is finished, the pressure of overcrowded buses will be lessened, and hopefully will allow even more people to take the Muni Metro. I even have Muni's 10-ride pass integrated with my Clipper Card as a matter of fact.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 07:07 AM   #550
goten2255
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 21

True these projects should be built in phases and thats what i believe as well.

the problem with this society is that they want to fix things fast and right away but the fact is that all of these projects takes time to finish.

the central subway is a second phase of the third street line, also people don't understand that tunneling takes alot of work to be done, its not just building a tunnel and thats it.

It takes alot of ulitlity relocation, also alot of construction which means services of roads and such will be affected its not something that can be done overnight, also people have to be aware of the construction noises that could happen so the residents of the areas affected will know, so alot of things have to be done.

also on BART i do support its expansion because it means people will have more of an access to BART then ever before, the EBART will be cheaper to run and will allow expansions easier to happen, also to Livermore as well to expand to more areas to serve those areas that way people can access Mass transit.
goten2255 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 07:29 AM   #551
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by goten2255
True these projects should be built in phases and thats what i believe as well.

the problem with this society is that they want to fix things fast and right away but the fact is that all of these projects takes time to finish.

the central subway is a second phase of the third street line, also people don't understand that tunneling takes alot of work to be done, its not just building a tunnel and thats it.

It takes alot of ulitlity relocation, also alot of construction which means services of roads and such will be affected its not something that can be done overnight, also people have to be aware of the construction noises that could happen so the residents of the areas affected will know, so alot of things have to be done.

also on BART i do support its expansion because it means people will have more of an access to BART then ever before, the EBART will be cheaper to run and will allow expansions easier to happen, also to Livermore as well to expand to more areas to serve those areas that way people can access Mass transit.
Looks like we share similar thoughts and comments on mass transit projects. Indeed, such projects take a lot of time, manpower, and equipment to make things possible. And with careful consideration for noise, dirt, and the like, these projects are done safely and smoothly. Hopefully, though, these projects will be done according to budget and schedule.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 07:44 AM   #552
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by quashlo View Post

Opponents are also way too-focused on the "Central Subway" as a singular project, attacking it as some sort of "gift" to Chinatown while completely ignoring the fact that it's actually just the second phase of the Third Street LRT project, which is creating a modern light rail corridor along the eastern spine of San Francisco and expanding the Muni Metro network into an actual grid network, as opposed to the single trunk line we have right now under Market Street.
Actually from what I've heard, much of the critics re: that scheme seems to be focused on all the disruptions & inconveniences that its creating for Chinatown now & further down the road.

As for it being a "gift", the critics are re: the WilliePaks, etc, not to Chinatown.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 08:35 AM   #553
quashlo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,835
Likes (Received): 3215

I've heard the construction issues with regards to the Union Square merchants and the North Beach folk / Telegraph Hill Dwellers clique, but not from Chinatown merchants. I don't see why Chinatown merchants would be worried about construction though, most of the traffic closures and detours are in the former two areas, not in Chinatown.

Anyways, yes, there is some criticism of Pak et al., but it should be painfully obvious that a significant and vocal portion of the opposition against the Central Subway is specifically framing the project as a Chinatown vs. Richmond issue, which should be a non-issue for all the reasons I enumerated, and more.

See the third most popular comment here:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...it-3937837.php

Quote:
Hang a left turn at Union Square and run the subway out to the Richmond District and maybe you have something. A subway to Chinatown is a waste of time and money. Unless you happen to own property along Stockton Street, of course.
A completely irrational comment since the portion of the project cost you'd be saving by not going north from Union Square wouldn't get you very far west along Geary either. I'm not sure you'd even be able to make it to the likely portal location for a Geary LRT (Laguna).

Third comment here:
http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2...entral-subway/

Quote:
First of all, the N and the T already go from Caltrain to Union Square so that first section is totally redundant. The next leg from Union Square to Chinatown is just useless. 90% of the residents in Chinatown never leave Chinatown. 100% of the tourists walk from Union Sq to Chinatown. How many miles of a "G" line under Geary to the Richmond would we have gotten for $1.6 billion? The subway to no where!
No basis behind the figures, and looking at the project strictly as a Union Square to Chinatown deal when it really isn't at all. And just like the first comment, you wouldn't get far under Geary for only $1.6 billion, since it will need to tie into the existing Metro network somehow, unless they want to bother with land acquisition for a new railyard and maintenance facility out in the Richmond. Good luck with that, by the way... If you thought it was difficult trying to sell a surface LRT to Geary merchants, try selling Richmond residents on a new railyard generating all that noise at 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM.

First most popular comment here:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ms-3714932.php

Quote:
Or, they could save $1.6B and make Stockton a dedicated busway.

I know I know, thousands of drivers use Stockton every day, but if 10,000 drivers a day use Stockton, are those drivers willing to pay $160,000 each to keep it open?

I think Geary St needs a train much more than Chinatown.
Again, focusing on the project strictly as a Chinatown deal. You'd never be able to do an entire project along Geary for only $1.6 billion, as you'd need to start at the Downtown end and wouldn't get very far... In the words of one of the Central Subway opponents above, precisely a "subway to no where". Any solution for the full length of the Geary Corridor would cost much more than just $1.6 billion and may need to be phased, just like the Third Street LRT + Central Subway.
__________________
San Francisco
Japan 2013; Japan 2011
: Tōkyō I, II, III (Kamakura), IV (Yokohama), V; Ōsaka I (+Kyōto +Kōbe), II (Kyōto), III (Nara); Hiroshima; Fukuoka; Nagasaki; Kita-Kyushu + Shimonoseki; Nikkō
quashlo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2012, 08:53 AM   #554
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Dang, those opponents really have little clue on how the $1,600,000,000 price tag of the Central Subway project can be equated to. It's like comparing some "measly" distance of a subway versus constructing (or actually reconfiguring) Geary Boulevard to become a Muni Metro line. Yes, reconfiguring Geary as a Muni Metro line is way more expensive, especially if you redo the line between Gough Street to La Playa Boulevard... Worse would be how to create a tunnel between Gough all the way to Market.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2012, 01:00 AM   #555
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Dang, those opponents really have little clue on how the $1,600,000,000 price tag of the Central Subway project can be equated to. It's like comparing some "measly" distance of a subway versus constructing (or actually reconfiguring) Geary Boulevard to become a Muni Metro line. Yes, reconfiguring Geary as a Muni Metro line is way more expensive, especially if you redo the line between Gough Street to La Playa Boulevard... Worse would be how to create a tunnel between Gough all the way to Market.
Maybe....but many of the those labeled as having little clue as regards the doubling of the price tag of the Willie-Pak boondoogle speak from thirty or more years of experience getting things right, while the having to cope with the mistakes of clueless politicos, albeit they come & go, who keep getting it wrong.

One of the jokers who came up with Willie-Pak boondoogle at $800 million was a younger relative of the Burton brothers who got fired from being the MUNI general manager for running over the budget.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2012, 07:40 AM   #556
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviews

Maybe....but many of the those labeled as having little clue as regards the doubling of the price tag of the Willie-Pak boondoogle speak from thirty or more years of experience getting things right, while the having to cope with the mistakes of clueless politicos, albeit they come & go, who keep getting it wrong.

One of the jokers who came up with Willie-Pak boondoogle at $800 million was a younger relative of the Burton brothers who got fired from being the MUNI general manager for running over the budget.
Hmmm... Interesting angle. I wonder then who would be the most likely opponents of the Central Subway because the main beneficiary here are the residents of Chinatown and some from North Beach.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2012, 08:15 AM   #557
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
Hmmm... Interesting angle. I wonder then who would be the most likely opponents of the Central Subway because the main beneficiary here are the residents of Chinatown and some from North Beach.
What makes you think that?
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2012, 08:33 AM   #558
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviews

What makes you think that?
Reading your commentary, along with what others are commenting from the Chronicle and the Examiner, it seems like the boondoggle provides a lot of benefits rather than issues, and I think that the opponents of the measure would be those who have little idea on how much Chinatown has become overcrowded over time, coupled with the fact that a lot of people from that neighborhood rely on Muni to get to wherever they want to go. I mean, investing $1,600,000,000 now to build a subway is a first step towards meeting the long-term needs of Chinatown's residents, and that land values will rise significantly once it is finished because the area will become more accessible for thousands of commuters every single day. Add to that the relief from overcrowded bus lines (8x, 30, and 45). It's good that Muni is investing in the Central Subway because it brings more commuters to and from Mission Bay, Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, Chinatown, and Union Square: at least three of those areas have significant ridership bases that warrant a light rail line indeed. Plus, many commuters will get the benefit of a shorter route between Union Square (at Powell Street) and Caltrain that would save them minutes from their commute, making it a worthwhile project. Its function as a bypass will contribute to a bigger light rail traffic and patronage for commuters and visitors alike.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012, 03:12 AM   #559
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5752

BART Top Ten Ridership Days

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20121023.aspx
  1. 11/3/2010 Wed 522,198 Giants' Victory Parade
  2. 10/29/2009 Thur 442,067 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
  3. 10/30/2009 Fri 437,693 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
  4. 10/28/2009 Wed 437,180 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure
  5. 10/11/2012 Thur 431,771 A's vs. Detroit; Warriors pre-season
  6. 10/9/2012 Tue 428,484 A's vs. Detroit
  7. 10/3/2012 Wed 426,948 Oracle Conference; A's vs. Texas; America's Cup
  8. 10/10/2012 Wed 426,431 A's vs. Detroit
  9. 10/5/2012 Fri 424,483 Bluegrass Festival; Fleet Week; America's Cup
  10. 10/18/2012 Thur 420,277 49ers vs. Seattle
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012, 04:03 AM   #560
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,807
Likes (Received): 11247

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20121023.aspx

[*] 11/3/2010 Wed 522,198 Giants' Victory Parade[*] 10/29/2009 Thur 442,067 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure[*] 10/30/2009 Fri 437,693 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure[*] 10/28/2009 Wed 437,180 Emergency Bay Bridge Closure[*] 10/11/2012 Thur 431,771 A's vs. Detroit; Warriors pre-season[*] 10/9/2012 Tue 428,484 A's vs. Detroit[*] 10/3/2012 Wed 426,948 Oracle Conference; A's vs. Texas; America's Cup[*] 10/10/2012 Wed 426,431 A's vs. Detroit[*] 10/5/2012 Fri 424,483 Bluegrass Festival; Fleet Week; America's Cup[*] 10/18/2012 Thur 420,277 49ers vs. Seattle
Well, if the Giants win another World Series, I will be there, and I will take BART from school. that just shows how BART is crucial to the Bay Area's transportation network.
__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine Forums • SF Bay Area Forums • Bay Area Transit • NEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: Flickr • Photobucket • Instagram

Rohnert Park • Rio Vista • Richmond • Redwood City • Portola Valley • Pleasanton • Pleasant Hill
fieldsofdreams está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
bart, muni, sacramento, san francisco, smart

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium