Comments on: Subway Dream (San Francisco)

By: Busway Down Geary Likely Next Big Project for San Francisco « the transport politic

Wed, 06 May 2009 16:41:46 +0000

[...] and then, if we’re thinking big, up Geary. This idea has been well covered by SPUR (PDF), Transbay Blog, and The Overhead Wire. The street has high potential ridership and could probably qualify for a [...]

By: Why We Still Need Better Education About BRT « Transbay Blog

Why We Still Need Better Education About BRT « Transbay Blog — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:47:34 +0000

[...] blog posts, and on the maps posted on my Flickr account) for the post from last December about a fantasy subway rail network for San Francisco with the later post that discussed a fantasy bus rapid transit network for San Francisco. Some [...]

By: sftransitjunkie

sftransitjunkie — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:11:29 +0000

WOW! Cool site and I’m glad to be back in SF even though riding the NYC subway for a year was amazing.

While I was away I envisioned a second transbay tube that would run BART along 4th St., up Stockton (replacing the Central Subway boondoggle), along Columbus Ave., around the Aquatic Park and down Van Ness where it would join with the current BART line on Mission. Stations would be:

4th/King (transfer to MUNI and Caltrain)
Moscone Center
Union Square/Powell (transfer to MUNI and other BART lines)
Chinatown
North Beach
Aquatic Park/Fort Mason
Union St.
California St.
Geary
City Hall
Van Ness (transfer to MUNI)
connecting to 16th/Mission BART

Across the bay the tube would serve a station in Alameda (transfer to an historic streetcar line connecting the commercial districts along Webster and Park) and Jack London Square before connecting with existing BART…honestly, I need to work on this segment because I’m not too familiar with the East Bay, not owning a car.

In addition, this second transbay tube would carry HSR/commuter rail from the east bay. Just before entering SF, the tube would split and the HSR/commuter rail segment would run along 2nd St. to the new transbay terminal, joining with an underground caltrain along the way from the south bay (as currently proposed).

Finally, a branch from the the existing BART line between Montgomery and Powell Stations will be built to serve the Geary/19th Ave. corridors. The Union Square station will connect to the new BART line on Stockton and the existing Powell St. station creating a “Times Square” sort of deal. The line will continue along Geary with the following stops in some of the highest-density areas outside of NYC (east of Van Ness):

Union Square/Powell (transfer to MUNI and other BART lines)
Leavenworth
Van Ness/Geary
Fillmore
Masonic
Arguello
Inner Richmond (somewhere near 8th or 9th Ave.)
GG Park
Judah (transfer to MUNI)
Taraval (transfer to MUNI)
Stonestown/SFSU (transfer to MUNI)
connection to Daly City line

Why BART and not MUNI?

1. The goal is to move more people faster throughout the city. Surface lines simply aren’t fast enough or equipped to handle large capacity. The 1-car train proposal for the Central Subway is a joke. A freakin’ joke.
2. The goal is to connect more neighborhoods and commercial districts. Imagine telling your spouse or friend…”Let’s take BART to the Giants game.” Or, “There are great Russian restaurants in the Richmond. Let’s jump on BART and try one of them.”
3. The goal is to get people out of their cars, even for a couple hours a week more than usual. Encourage high-density development, especially in SOMA where high-rise condo building construction should deter car ownership, not promote it. Then again, you can’t ride rail if there isn’t a viable alternative.

“Build it and they will come.” Perfect example being the mid-city Green Line when it opened in Washington, DC in 1999. 2 stations built relatively close together surpassed all ridership expectations,

By: irect

irect — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:28:32 +0000

Nice map. Very informative. Keep up the work.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:13:14 +0000

It’s an interesting question. Generally speaking, elevated rail should be a consideration, since it’s a good way to provide subway-level service without the expense of tunneling. That said, San Francisco has traditionally prided itself on being a city in tune with its natural surroundings, so I have to wonder how people would react to something elevated like this, which would block views — though I bet the views from an air tram like this would be great. Streetcars running in mixed flow on the streets has been a part of the San Francisco landscape for decades, while an elevated line like this would be wholly new. It’d be fun to see how this sort of a plan would go over if proposed to residents near 40th and Judah, for an N-Judah upgrade.

For the Central Subway corridor, stopping the tunnel isn’t likely for political reasons, which unfortunately tend to be given primary consideration above transportation-related reasons, but I wish the MTA would seriously study alternatives — not tunnel alternatives, but actual alternatives. The only portion of the 30/45 corridor that really needs extra capacity is the section of Stockton between Market and Columbus — a length of just a mile. There are definitely cheaper ways to provide extra capacity over such a short distance.

By: EC

EC — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:22:31 +0000

Thanks Eric, great thinking.
I have another dream about using elevated rail systems that would work really well with these proposed routes. There is a lot of interesting precedent out there to use elegant above-the-road systems instead of subway systems. For example, everyone knows about monorails, but what about these?
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/aerobus.htm

Could San Francisco consider some of these alternatives? I have collected some research here to spark some innovative discussion.
http://web.mac.com/ericchaves/AirTram_Concept

I am excited to hold a short brainstorming session to see what comes out of it – let me know if anyone is interested.

Thanks, Eric

-EC

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:32:25 +0000

Thanks for putting this together Eric – it’s a great dream and matches pretty closely with mine :)

However, you left out the essential Treasure Island Cable Car.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:09:26 +0000

I would love to see a line down 19th. However, that’s a LONG and expensive tunnel.
Quite true; hopefully you’ll be happier with the BRT dream maps, which I’ll get around to posting in the new year.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:24:25 +0000

Good points, and trust me – I would love to see a line down 19th. However, that’s a LONG and expensive tunnel.

It would hopefully help with traffic along 19th, but this is actually one case where something on the surface might be better – if state approval could come to take a lane in each direction for BRT or the Metro. If we do nothing to the streetscape of 19th and just add BART underneath, I can’t imagine traffic on 19th decreasing or slowing much.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:16:31 +0000

^^^ Those reasons are basically why the 19th Ave line is there: improving the greater network, and to make a much shorter trip from the westside to downtown. You could put the Metro on 19th too, of course, but the transfer at Geary/Park Presidio makes this trip less appealing, though still a clear improvement over what we have now.

In addition, BART on 19th could at least partially redeem BART’s Peninsula extension, if 19th Ave trains continued south past Daly City. Electrified Caltrain could handle the regional trips between the Peninsula and eastside SF, while BART would cover the regional trips between the Peninsula and westside SF, in addition to providing direct connections to destinations along the L, M, and N Metro lines.