Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
“This is my no. 1 complaint about Muni. They really, really need to consolidate stops. I understand the tradeoff — that I might have to walk a block farther to get to my stop. But I will most definitely trade that for a faster ride.”
– megan allison In response to "Moralism vs. Utopianism--of Red Lights, Helmets, Bike Lanes and..."
Email sf-tips@streetsblog.org or send them anonymously. Tag your photos, links, and videos with "streetsblog san francisco".
by Matthew Roth
The idea that the speed and free-flow of cars is the proxy that is being used across the state of California to measure whether a project is [environmentally] impactful is in the long run undermining the very quality of life [we] are working to protect. Continue reading »
Streetsblog is a daily news source, online community and political mobilizer for the Livable Streets movement.
Learn More…Streetfilms produces videos that show how cities around the world are reclaiming their streets for pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders.
Learn More…Streetswiki is a community-created, online encyclopedia where you can read, write and learn about sustainable transportation policies, practices and ideas from around the world.
Learn More…The Livable Streets Community is a place to organize projects in your own town and connect and share with others who are doing the same.
Learn More…Livable Streets Education helps classroom teachers and schools weave pertinent ideas about urban livability and advocacy into their curriculum.
Learn More…
SfResident
It doesn't bother me that police are rarely seen on buses. What bothers me is 1) That the SFPD appears to be charging MTA for services NOT rendered and 2) That the SFPD does not quickly respond to incidents on buses. Neither of these issues will be solved by these actions.
I agree with the poster above. Additionally, this seems to me like slight of hand to make the problem disappear on paper but not in substance. It seems to me that the fundamental issue is that money allocated to MUNI by the voters and the supervisors should go to MUNI operations, not basic SFPD operations, even if those SFPD operations are under the vague direction of Mr. Ford.
And don't even get me started on the money-pit that is 311.
in response to MTA To Get Greater Management Role Over SFPD's Traffic Company
theo
Au contraire, Greg, 311 is a great idea that Gavin stole from a few other cities including, I think, Chicago.
The idea of having a clearinghouse for the hopelessly complex matrix of local government functions (or any bureaucracy, public or private) is fantastic, money permitting. Give people something empowering to do about problems they observe, instead of just whining!
The city's just now discovering what every company (especially the computer industry) already knew: good customer service with a human on the other end is expensive.
They should've implemented the 511 stop tagging idea much earlier -- but 511 is somewhat dysfunctional, as you know.
in response to Calls For Greater 311, MTA Efficiency
rzu
This doesn't sound like a great idea. Chief Parra already makes a good salary, paid for by the MTA. No doubt with greater responsability he will get a hefty pay raise. Why don't we let the police do the policing and the MTA work on running the buses?
I'm also not such a fan of taking parking citation increases off the table. Why don't we increase the penalty for late payment of citations? You'd immediately see an increase in revenue through on-time payment of citations without the sticker shock that usually accompanies parking citation increases.
in response to MTA To Get Greater Management Role Over SFPD's Traffic Company
Greg Riessen
San Francisco also has a nifty traffic control center, SFGo
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/ogo/indxsfgo.htm
I believe the system currently covers Third Street, the Embarcadero and several intersections in SOMA, with the eventual goal of covering all signalized intersections in the city. There is also talk of combining it with Muni Central Control, which would make sense, budget permitting.
Among other benefits, the technology allows a traffic signal to detect an LRV several intersections away, and accordingly adjust the signal timing so that the signal is green when the LRV arrives (in theory).
in response to Streetfilms: Behind the Scenes at LA Traffic Control
Wai Yip Tung
“The average speeds on the (T-Third) line are between 10 and 11 mph,” Snyder said, which “is at the low end of typical speeds for light rail that shares right of way with cars.” But Snyder said the T-Third, “with mixed right-of-way but mostly exclusive, should have a speed closer to 15-20 mph.”
Not only does it not live up to the expectation in terms of speed, its frequency is low and inconsistent. Once I checked the next train arrival time and it predicts to arrive in something like 25 minutes. I leave the station in disgust and walk the 1.5 miles route instead. In a typical SF MUNI fashion, walking beats the slow coach. Only in this case walking beats the speedy light rail too.
in response to Today's Headlines
Wai Yip Tung
That said, I think the ferries does strain from the number of bicycles. The dwell time is really long because of the loading and unloading of bicycles. It definite needs wider gangway and a better system speed up stacking and unloading of bicycles.
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
Wai Yip Tung
If you read the user comments from the Chronicle article, the notion of bicycle tourists as Plague of Locusts is roundly ridicule by resident and non-resident alike. Everywhere you go, there are always whiners and NIMBYs. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross from the Chronicle thrive on turn those noise into juicy news.
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
marcos
The Mayor's office is swindling the Board of Supervisors by transferring the SFPD Traffic Company to the MTA.
The MTA cannot run the complex transit system effectively, so the solution to that seems to be to pile on the impossibly complex policy black hole of the Taxi Commission onto them and now to shield the Traffic Company from any Board of Supervisors policy oversight by giving control over that to the MTA.
The Board of Supervisors should cut the SFPD budget by the amount paid by Muni for the Traffic Company, keep the Traffic Company at the SFPD and "foot patrol" the hell out of the Traffic Company to compel, with legislation, compliance with Transit First enforcement.
Further, the BofS should make the POA figure out how to plug the budget gap which is a direct result of shifting the burden from the 25% "loss leader" raises given out 2 years ago from a department that is as good at protecting us from violent crime to the MTA which cannot run a timely transit system.
The MTA has been unable to use the DPT to keep transit moving, why would they be able to use the SFPD to do the same? I would imagine that the parochial and cranky cops would ignore directives from the MTA leaving the Board no leverage, the cops laughing all the way to the bank and us stuck in a Muni death spiral.
-marc
in response to Today's Headlines
marcos
How about taking care to ensure that 38L's leave Transbay BEFORE 38 locals so that the "limited" does not mean "limited" by the regular 38's crawling through the Tenderloin?
-marc
in response to Streetscast: An Interview with MTA Chief Nat Ford, Part II
david vartanoff
Nuts and bolts not asked. So why isn't Ford demoting sreet inspectors to drivers to fill out the runs? From the Daily issued Sun including Sat PM there were NINE buses not running on Mission St (3 14L, 1 49, 5 14 locals) As several of these have been not out for days, the follower drivers get extra pay for the aggravation, Eats up OT funds. When will he get serious about stiffing traffic at 4th & Townsend so the N's, T,s can get through the intersection? What about a staffer to regulate outbound N's there so they don't leave just as a crowd empties from Caltrain?
in response to Streetscast: An Interview with MTA Chief Nat Ford, Part II
marcos
Let's all hope that the previous poster doesn't mess up a track stop in a gale wind at a congested "stop as yield" intersection, lest "[the] Calliope crash to the ground" and we all end up Blinded by the Light.
-marc
in response to The Physics and Ethics of a Rolling Stop
Michael
Another Chase billboard nearby features the same biker graphic but different text, which more obviously does not relate to the biker -- he seems to be more part of the logo than part of the narrative of the ad. So, I guess that means he's being portrayed positively, though he's obviously a recreational biker, not a commuter.
in response to Ad Nauseam: What Are You Implying, Chase?
Jamison Wieser
You've already decided your hybrid plan is the best way to go based solely on something Tom Radulovich suggests may be the case for up to 4 shared BART stations?
When the MTA starts looking at fleet replacement, they'll consider the options, and it could work out to be faster and cheeper to just shut down stations for reconstruction instead of this hybrid idea. That's if they decide to go low-floor, which they might not have the funding to do if they already have to replace 151 vehicles and everything needed to support them. We don't know what options will be available in 2025, but the MTA stay high-floor and leave it as is.
Now, back to the present, MTA is starting to look at ordering additional vehicles for the Central Subway and handle ridership growth. With rebuilding station platforms out of scope, they're likely going to order more Breda style high-floor cars unless there's a way to start running low-floor cars without rebuilding stations.
in response to Do San Francisco's Historic Streetcars Keep Muni Stuck in the Past?
Calliope
Yes! This plus better education for drivers and cyclists for approaching 4 way stops.
All the time I see cars who are already stopped, remain stopped at a 4 way stop and wave me through when I stop to give them their turn. I don't want drivers to be polite and yield to me out of turn, but perhaps they do it because they are used to cyclists blowing through stop signs and they don't think that I'll stop.
in response to The Physics and Ethics of a Rolling Stop
marcos
Tourism generally obeys the uncertainty principleof quantum physics in that the tourist cannot see a place without changing the character of it, which means that you can never really experience a place as a tourist because your presence changes it.
Since the whole point of tourism and the emerging "experience economy" is to take a place and market visiting it because it has certain desirable characteristics, it follows that too often these places are victims of their success.
New York, Amsterdam and San Francisco all suffer from this phenomenon to varying degrees. I think this is what is happening in Sausalito.
As for the Chronicle, they will put themselves out of our misery shortly, be patient.
-marc
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
Brett Crosby
Yeaaaa! Let's do this in SF, too pls.
in response to The Physics and Ethics of a Rolling Stop
mikesonn
New housing construction is going to be slow for a while now (and it should be). This should be talked about as a way to put all those people to work. Why can't we use new rail as an indicator of growth as opposed to housing starts?
in response to Rail Across America
Pat
A fine case of treating a wonderful opportunity as a problem
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
marcos
Stations will need to be retrofit to accomodate low floor cars at some point. Radulovich indicated that there was already a low floor platform substructure under the existing high floor platforms in the Metro stations.
One would think that the MTA would plan this out over time, to create hybrid stations before they are needed as money comes through, rather than waiting for the last minute and trying to convert all stations to accomodate both typologies.
The other issue, of course, is how to go hybrid on the outlying stations where there are raised platforms such as 3d.
-marc
in response to Do San Francisco's Historic Streetcars Keep Muni Stuck in the Past?
taomom
Wow, we have tourists who want to 1) have fun, 2) spend money in our community, and 3) not destroy the planet while doing it. (Would Sausalito really rather these tourists show up in 250,000 extra cars a year? Really?) If Sausalito had half a brain, it would market itself as the Copenhagen of the Bay and welcome these folks with good signage, lovely bike lanes, and large bike parking areas. Heck, if I knew that Sausalito was really bike-friendly, maybe I'd do the trip and take the ferry back to the city. Sounds like fun. As to the ferries, they should be designed to off-load bikes efficiently in any case. I can't imagine how it would take two entire years to come up with some solution that works.
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
mikesonn
I third what Pat and Jeffery are saying. Can we start calling the Marin commuters what they really are - a blight on the city and a hazard to our health and well being?
Maybe the Chron needs to write an article about the "Plague of Commuters".
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
Josh
$9.50 Doyle Drive toll?
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
Jeffrey W. Baker
I'm with Pat. I'm a lot more upset about the half a million Marin jackasses who ruin San Francisco daily.
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
CBrinkman
I am dead certain that without Wade we would not have Sunday Streets 2008 or 2009. Seeing what it takes to shepherd an event like Sunday Streets through the maze of our City was eye opening for me - a lot of people are working really hard on Sunday Streets as a way to mainstream the idea of car free space, and Wade is one of them. It's easy for some to dismiss this event, but's it not easy to make happen.
in response to Streetscast: Sunday Streets Press Conference
Michael
@Susan Vaughan, I will definitely be commenting while I can on CAMP. Unless Donald Fisher wants to put up the cash to extend BART, it really is a disastrous location for a popular institution.
If he's willing to wait, I'd rather see such an institution incorporated into the Hunter's Point/Bayview redevelopment plan -- especially if the 49ers stadium falls through. This would make it easily reachable by Caltrain and BART-->Muni, and it would actually contribute something to development around it (why waste the power of a popular museum on a remote park?) And even with the more urban location, it would benefit from beautiful views of the bay and bay-side parks.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
Jamison Wieser
We will not be eligible for federal funding of fleet replacement until 2025, the end of the 30 years which the Bredas were designed to operate, though there are two procurements of additional cars planned between now and then. One is for additional vehicles (I think this was up to 20) just to keep up with ridership growth and another for the Central Subway (which I've seen range between 4-8 vehicles) and the process of figuring out what those additional vehicles will look like is just now starting.
Right now it's a catch-22, while we will be able to purchase some more vehicles before 2025, there are 33 high-platform surface and subway stations they will have to serve until then. And that's if we can get additional funding when we replace the fleet (151 vehicles x $4-5 million in today's dollars) to fund the conversion of all those high-platform stations to low floor.
For the time being, those new cars will have to be able to use the high-platform stations, which means they will have to be high-platform cars. I don't want to see us to buy any more high-platform streetcars (except for the historic lines) if we can avoid it, especially not more Breda cars because of the problems they have, which gets us back to my low-floor surface J-Church line.
There's a flaw with my low-floor J-Church plan though, it doesn't account for all the new cars we're going to order. The J only uses, I think 9-10 cars, max and there is a 20% cap on how many more cars you can has as a reserve fleet, which only brings us up to 12 low-floor cars out of the 20-28 more we're considering.
in response to Do San Francisco's Historic Streetcars Keep Muni Stuck in the Past?
Michael
@DaveO, I completely agree about the importance of signs clearly identifying stations. That seems like one of the major elements that make people think of a service as serving a larger region, not just local daily commuter. The T-Third stops are an exception, in that the stops are well marked and have real identities. For example:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ymaig3k8EIg/Rrv6VK2SkZI/AAAAAAAAAJs/fFEJtMpxg2I/s400/muniexaminer.jpg
How hard could it be to have more clearly identifiable signs like that at major stops on the other Metro lines? With such identification, they become something more like "stations", not just "stops".
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
MarcSFBC
If 80% of the 250,000 renters take the ferry back at $9.50 a trip, that's $1.9 million loss to the ferry farebox. If they ban bikes, as some noisy cranks propose, how do they intend to make up that shortfall?
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
Pat
I have a problem with people driving cars all over my town and across the Golden Gate, parking them in inconvenient places, blocking bike lanes and sidewalks, choking me with exhaust and killing 43,000 people a year. That doesn't seem to get any press though...
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
Mike
Sounds like the problem is with the stairs. The Staten Island Ferry can offload hundreds of cyclists in just a few minutes.
in response to Sausalito Bike Tourists a Boon, Not a "Plague of Locusts"
marcos
"Back in the day, when they were fixing the upper Market tunnel, I seem to recall that the Boeing LRV disasters were able to run on the surface on Church along with the 22 using pentographs and not ground themselves out."
Just like the J Church now. Duh.
-marc
in response to Do San Francisco's Historic Streetcars Keep Muni Stuck in the Past?
marcos
The issue of fixing car #1 is orthogonal to myriad issues of LR transit in SF.
My car #1 story begins at Dennis Peron's cannabis club on Market east of Van Ness. After medicating with a happy, friendly crowd which was one of the few truly multicultural gathering places in SF other than the Muni, as I was leaving the club on a sunny beautiful day, what came by but the #1 car.
Well toasted, I sat up front in the windowless car and enjoyed the day and the wind flowing through what is left of my hair. #1 was returning to the Geneva car barn, so the route was through Market to Noe to Church and through the park, down San Jose and onto Geneva.
This is the kind of unique San Francisco experience that tourists and locals alike can enjoy, and enjoy better, more colorfully under Prop 215. I was kinda hungry on the BART ride home, tho, for some reason.
The Bredas are just under 1/2 way through their useful life. We need to plan now for a replacement fleet, and my estimates is that the cost of that fleet will be several hundred times the cost to fix #1.
The feds are not loathe to fund capital acquisition, so I don't see the dollars going to fix #1 sucking down dollars from Muni placing orders for a replacement LRV fleet in 10 years time.
Radulovich had the elegant solution to the high/low floor transition problem, which was to lower part of the existing extra long subway platforms to low floor heights, and to have a ramp that allows enough room for 2 or even 3 cars at each end of the platform.
Back in the day, when they were fixing the upper Market tunnel, I seem to recall that the Boeing LRV disasters were able to run on the surface on Church along with the 22 using pentographs and not ground themselves out.
-marc
in response to Do San Francisco's Historic Streetcars Keep Muni Stuck in the Past?
DaveO
Another advantage of trains (espeically Subways) is the fact that there are clearly named Stations, and the station platforms generally clearly indicate which direction is which. You can easily tell someone to get on Bart towards the East Bay and exit at Embarcadero, etc.
Light rail is a bit sketchier, primarily because very few of the "stations" have names that are clearly identifiable on a map, or even marked clearly on the platform itself. I want to see big signs on island platforms that say "9th and Irving" or "24th and Church" that correspond in large font on a transit map.
The buses are a complete disaster in this regard. You look at a map, and you have no idea where the stops are, what they are called. And many of the stops are marked just by swatches of yellow paint on the ground or on a utility pole. A tourist or a day tripper is not going to be bothered to learn such a convoluted system, so they will stick to transit modes where stations are clearly identifiable and easy to figure out. One of the big disappointments of the TEP, if it ever gets implemented, is that there doesn't seem to be much of an effort to take those identified "crosstown" routes, reduce stops and then enhance the remaining ones.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
h
there are obvious advantages to subways -- generally fast and reliable. Buses have the reputation (and some reality, BRT and express buses excepted) of unreliability and slowness, generally due to the fact that they have to stop every block or two at stop signs and lights, have to mix with traffic, etc etc. And of course, non-locals don't have the time or inclination to sit down and study an intricate map of SF and figure out the web of the bus network. It's easy to just look at where the bold lines on the regional maps go. Why are out-of-towners and suburbanites drawn to these lines (e.g. N-Judah) do surface light rail lines that share those same features once they leave the tunnel? It's largely marketing and perception. If you were to start from the intersection of Market and Van Ness and raced to get to 9th Avenue on either the 71-Noriega or N-Judah, it would be quite a race, and I bet the 71 would beat it much of the time. In fact, according to the published schedule, on Sundays it takes 22 minutes for the 71 to get from Van Ness to 19th Ave, and it takes the N-Judah 21 minutes. Identical! The answer to question, then, as someone pointed out is marketing. If Muni was more savvy, they would design, publish, and promote maps that represent core bus lines in the same way that they represent rail lines -- big, thick lines on maps with key stops indicated. The very savvy BART maps (with the BART lines in big thick swaths on the map) show light-rail lines, but they don't show bus lines. When you get down to it, it's arbitrary and does not necessarily represent the most significant, fast, or reliable routes that connect to BART -- it's just a bias toward representing rail on a map and not buses. Muni really should tell BART what they should show on their maps, and MTC should coordinate to produce better regional maps. It's probably more useful to show the 38-Geary on a regional transit map than it is to show the M-Oceanview, or even the J-Church.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
matt
Zig, a lot of suburban people in cities like Chicago and NYC feel comfortable riding the train into the city. They know they'll end up at a safe destination, with no transfers or confusion. It's a lot like BART in that way.
But ask them to transfer to a bus, and then you'll see the real difference between them and urbanites.
Buses are scary to suburbanites -- they don't know where they go, they might get on the wrong direction, and they might get off at the wrong stop and get stuck in some frightening housing project. (And yeah, the people on buses scare some of them too.)
To overcome these fears, you really have to hold their hand and give very specific directions.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
mcas
Todd: Well, there are V-brakes on the bike, so maybe the Mountain Boots *do* make sense. And maybe they are implying that he has a car to get to single-track on his weekends off (not some low-wage off-hour employee), and therefore really DOES need a good bank, since he's got time and money to burn riding down mountains. Way to get into the deets...
Meli: Good Banks = Credit Unions. ..and nice sign. Missed that one!
in response to Ad Nauseam: What Are You Implying, Chase?
zig
Caltrain to the N works sort of if you really don't care about your time. I imagine that the day Caltrain goes all the way to the TransBay is the day this becomes viable for a family.
My fiancee's mom lives in the suburds of Chicago and as we have friends in the city we are always taking the commuter trains in and out on the weekends. Many families, groups of ladies shopping and young people ride into the city on a Saturday and it appears to be quite normal. This is what is needed in the Bay Area
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
mike
Car free = care free!
in response to Living a Car-Free Life
mike
Road diets are a great way to quickly improve a street, esp for cyclists and pedestrians. For the same cost of a typical sidewalk bulb out, you can re-stripe a mile of street.
San Francisco has done 30 of these types of projects, with many more to come. I haven't yet heard of another city in N America (or anywhere, for that matter) that has done more than SF.
in response to Wiki Wednesday: Getting Streets in Shape With Road Diets
taomom
Matt,
Thanks for sending the better directions to the Academy. (Caltrain to the N works, too, and Caltrain is a really nice option for folks south of Millbrae.) I agree that crystal clear directions are essential.
I also agree that San Francisco needs to do a better job promoting Muni outside the city. People in other parts of the Bay area often do not know where Muni goes or are too intimidated to take it. I honestly know people who have lived their whole life in Marin who did not know that there was an entire subway system below Market Street until I took them on it. Ah well.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
matt
No wonder they're having congestion problems. Has anyone looked at the Academy's website to see what kind of transit directions they're giving? It's really not well thought out.
http://www.calacademy.org/visit/getting_here/
I just sent the following email to the info@calacademy.org address. Please feel free to contact them too if you agree with me about this.
------------
I appreciate that the academy is trying to promote public transit as the best way to visit, but the current web page is not well thought out. Far too many choices are given, which confuses people who are not frequent transit users and actually makes them unlikely to use public transit.
For example, why is there a "Market Street Alternative Route" "If you prefer not to take the N-Judah streetcar"? Why would someone ever prefer not to take the faster option? For that matter, why are there 4 options from City Hall?
As an illustration of the kind of directions you should be providing, here are two examples. They're not perfect, but they're more specific and useful than the current directions. They tell visitors exactly where to transfer, and how quickly they will arrive at the museum.
----------
From the Peninsula on BART:
Get off at Glen Park station and transfer to the #44-O'Shaughnessy bus (inbound direction to California & 6th) directly across Bosworth street from the station. In about 17 minutes, you will arrive in front of the museum.
From the East Bay on BART:
At Civic Center station, transfer to the Muni Metro subway, one level above BART. Take the N-Judah in the outbound direction. In about 15 minutes, get off at the 9th and Irving stop, and walk 5 minutes north on 9th Avenue into Golden Gate Park.
---------
Thanks very much for listening.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
Seth Andrzejewski
One challenge for implementing a B-Geary or G-GG Park line is the need for another rail yard for that segment of the city.
Solution: create spurs along 9th for the N and along 6th/8th for the B/G and make the parking garage a new station/ railyard for Muni.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
marcos
@h, point taken, but the entire tenor of the TEP has been that you might have to walk a few more blocks to service that is more reliable, and that thesis has been used against service in other neighborhoods successfully.
Living near 16th/Mission, you could imagine the palpitations I suffered when I opened up the PDF of the TEP's first realignment proposals and saw the differences between the 33 and 24 split up, swapped and rejoined like some Frankenstein experiment gone all wrong. Fortunately that was euthanized.
The 33 is also a "hospital line," with SFGH, St. Mary's and Children's Hospital as well as the Mission Health Center. Eliminating service on Stanyan would cut off St. Marys from the mix.
The other option is to blow off the Inner Sunset and route the 33 to the west into the park at Fell, with stops at the McLaren Lodge, Conservatory of Flowers, Music Concourse/Museums and right onto 8th Ave, left back onto Fulton and to Arguello and the end of the line. That would cut out the nasty Stanyan/Fulton knot and still have similar service within a few blocks with a few stops removed, again a TEP priority. But that would not serve the UCSF connection which was part of the justification for the G Line.
Often ideas that one just pulls out of one's ass smell somewhat like ass.
-marc
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
John Murphy
@marcos actually the 33 does not go through Noe Valley.
*rimshot*
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
Susan Vaughan
It's great that people are discussing the solutions to the traffic congestion caused by the attractions in the GGP. However, there fewer than two weeks left to participate in the NEPA public comment period for the proposed Contemporary Art Museum in the Presidio (the CAMP). The close of the public comment period is April 27. There will also be a meeting at the Golden Gate Club, near the Main Post, about transportation issues on April 22 at 6:30 pm. Now is the time to make sure the problems being experienced in GGP and the Inner Sunset are not reproduced in and around the Presidio.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
h
2 topics:
(1) 33 line
I strongly beg to disagree with marc about the 33 line. The Stanyan portion is an integral part of the route (ie it serves my house). But as someone who rides the 33 regularly starting on Stanyan and heading in both directions (either to the Mission or to connect to the 38 on Geary), and relies on the 33 to support a daily car-free life, I can tell it is heavily used in this segment and is critical to serving the north panhandle, lone mountain, and inner richmond in a direct way without a ridiculous circuitous jaunt several blocks east through the park to serve a museum. As you pointed out -- the 33 is the all-cool neighborhood connector, one of the most useful lines in the City, and it would severely degrade its purpose by rerouting through the park.
(2) location of museums
We have to face reality and look at priorities in terms of land use. We could take up prime land near regional transit in the downtown for a museum with a huge footprint, or we could use that same space for a much greater density of jobs, housing, shopping, etc. We're certainly not going to put the offices in the middle of GGPark, so let's be real here. There's room for a few big cultural attractions downtown near BART. But we're near maxxed out on room for them. There's room for a couple more moderate sized ones -- for instance the Exploratorium is moving to one of the remaining major piers along the Embarcadero. But more museum expansion in the downtown is not serving us or the region very well. While I have myself in the past criticized these institutions for not locating themselves in more transit accessible locations, I've come to realize that our priority for using scarce land in the middle of downtown next to BART really isn't the de Young museum. We just need to do a better job at improving transit to the Park and other locations. The dumb Culture Bus certainly isn't the answer, but we can't pick everything up and move it downtown. We'd need a few more downtowns for that. And on top of that, I rather enjoy some of these civic institutions in the park.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
Jamison Wieser
Papal, rewiring is not the only option. The Bredas or any new low-floor trams could be outfitted with trolley poles instead of pantographs and use the existing wiring.
This is another reason why I'm pushing to consider moving the J-Church onto the surface, aside from that outbound turn at Market & Church all of the infrastructure is should be in place already, assuming we'd be able to find a vehicle that can make all the clearances.
Surface operations would be slower, even if Market Street were improved to speed service (something we need to do for bus and F-Line service anyway) but the J has the lowest ridership of the rail lines (lower than the F-Line) so fewer riders would be effected than on any other line.
in response to Do San Francisco's Historic Streetcars Keep Muni Stuck in the Past?
Michael
With Translink, it should be easier to advertise the BART to Muni Metro link as an easy connection to make (especially to GGP and AT&T park). The unfortunate thing about the Market Street subway is that it makes Muni Metro so low visibility that even many newer (and not so new) SF residents don't know about it. With an easier payment system, Muni Metro really needs to be presented as part of a larger regional transit network -- that is open to tourists and suburbanites.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
DaveO
Getting to the Music Concourse from Berkeley via public transit is one of the easiest travel itineraries in the Bay Area - BART to the N. The problem is tourists or people from Marin or the Peninsula or even other parts of SF. People who would be coming to the museums would take a train and other forms of (mostly) grade-separated transit, but will not try to navigate SF's maze of buses. If the trip involves a bus or some other mode of transit which doesn't have clearly identifiable stations, they will drive. It's why a G-line to the Park might work, where the CultureBus (worst...name...ever...) clearly failed.
Maybe that will change a bit if the bus is marketed differently like BRT and is a visibly different experience, but I know that whenever I visit a strange city, I look at their subway and train map and do not bother trying to understand their bus system. Build more grade-separated trains, for sure. But until that happens, the only way to get people out of their cars is to let them park near those trains.
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen
marcos
@Michael, since the 33 is the "all cool neighborhoods bus," a fantasy would be for it to continue its alignment to Stanyan and Haight but to turn left/south there and serve the Inner Sunse via Lincoln to 9th, continuing a 44-like route through the Golden Gate Park, but a bit further east to come out on Arguello and Fulton.
The worst part of the 33 is the Stanyan to Fulton, and if the alignment went down Lincoln to 9th Ave and into the park, then that would add a cool neighborhood, the park attractions and probably increase the travel time from the Mission to the Richmond by 10 min.
This would all require several more miles of overhead wire, along Lincoln and through the park, @ $1m/mi. Maybe the parking revenues from the garage can subsidize that!
-marc
in response to Cars Invade Golden Gate Park, Inner Sunset as Institutions Reopen