Post by bennyp81 on Jun 15, 2005 14:14:28 GMT -8
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 2:31 PM
I wounder why S.F. hasnt started to put the rest of its rail lines underground. I can understand about the BART, but why not MUNI?
Paul
sb
User ID: 7650093 Jul 29th 2:46 PM
long story. short answer: cost + compactness + existing ridership + competition w/ regional projects. what local activists are fighting for is fewer stops and more preempts - there's no good reason the muni metro can't be more of a modern light-rail system rather than old-fashioned streetcars.
that said, a new subway should open in 2012. cost: $449M/mi.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 2:48 PM
which new subway? the 3rd street metro?
Paul
sb
User ID: 7650093 Jul 29th 2:57 PM
phase two - the central subway (SOMA-union square-chinatown).
www.sfmuni.com/aboutmun/3rdover.htm
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 29th 7:01 PM
It is important to note that "Muni and the City are actively pursuing funding for the Central Subway." (from the website). In 1999 the city announced that they did not expect the underground line (Phase II) to be built for another 30 years. I don't believe that has changed.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 8:45 PM
WOW! 30 years. I think SF needs to start putting their rail lines underground now. Just like we're going to get a big jump in population in coming years, so too will San Francisco. I wonder how much worst traffic will get in SF in another 10-20 years.
Paul
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 29th 9:07 PM
San Francisco won't grow as fast as LA because it has an active anti-growth political constituency. It is also pretty tiny, geographically (slightly larger than Hollywood). San Francisco has also LOST population in recent years, but the Bay Area is gaining people.
The dense areas of SF DO have the rail lines underground. What would really help up there would be to create a central railroad station downtown, with connections to all the regional rail lines.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 10:14 PM
Why is the bay losing people? I love the area and couldnt see why anyone would leave. Well may be because the cost of living is so high, but thats the only reason. Does anyone know by how many people SF will grow in the next 10-25 years?
Paul
Matt K
User ID: 0658904 Jul 29th 10:33 PM
Paul, the "dot bomb" internet industry collapse sent a lot of high tech professionals scurrying out of the Bay Area. The insurmountable housing shortage didn't help much either:
*********
S.F. losing population fastest of U.S. cities
Census shows drop of 1.5% to 764,049
Genaro C. Armas, Associated Press
Thursday, July 10, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...7/10/CITIES.TMP
Anyone who has seen the proliferation of "For Rent" signs in windows and the moving trucks lumbering down San Francisco's narrow streets already knows what the Census Bureau's latest data reveal: that the city's population isn't what it used to be.
In fact, San Francisco lost a greater percentage of its residents than any other large city in the country between July 2001 and July 2002, declining 1.5 percent to just 764,049. The report also shows that San Francisco's population dropped nearly 2 percent between 2000 and 2002 after rising 7 percent over the 1990s.
Other Bay Area cities -- Sunnyvale, Daly City, San Jose, Oakland, Santa Clara and Fremont -- also showed declines, according to the new report, which ranks the country's urban centers with populations over 100,000.
The declines are not surprising because of the dot-com bust, high regional housing costs and the state's lagging economy, said Hans Johnson, a demographer with the Public Policy Institute of California.
Nationwide, people seem to be heading toward the sunny, once-sleepy and more affordable suburbs of Southern California, Nevada and Arizona.
Three Los Angeles suburbs -- Irvine, Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga -- were also among the 10 fastest-growing cities, as well as the San Diego suburb of Chula Vista. Growth in these areas was mainly spurred by the availability of more affordable homes and cheaper cost of living. The Central Valley towns of Modesto and Stockton ranked 18th and 21st, respectively, in population growth, each jumping more than 3 percent.
sb
User ID: 8729803 Jul 30th 12:43 AM
ok, couple things.
a) the central subway is on track for a 2013 opening. there have been some rumblings from the feds about cost-per-new-rider (*not* good - it's just hugely expensive to tunnel under downtown, not to mention existing bus ridership in the corridor is very high), but no one seriously doubts it'll get funded.
b) san francisco has lost population since the 2000 census, sure, but that was after substantial growth in the '90s. its official 2000 count was the city's highest ever.
c) that said, it's true that the dot-bust is just killing us right now. and NIMBY-ism means we've probably just about maxed out long-term.
d) the 'central railroad station' you mention, bert, should break ground w/in a couple of years - the new transbay terminal, on the site of the existing bus station on the edge of the financial district. it will be the HSR terminus as well as the final stop for caltrain from san jose (which will be electrified to provide metro-like service) and is one block from the embarcadero BART/muni station. a ped tunnel may connect them.
sb
User ID: 8729803 Jul 30th 12:47 AM
oh, about this comment:
well, yes and no. i live in the densest census tract west of new york - it's just shy of 100,000 people per square mile - and i'm about a 15-min walk from the nearest BART station. it may not sound like much, but they've been talking about a subway under my street for decades, and the new long-term plan we're about to vote on will put it off for another generation. we've caught your rapid bus bug up here. not that that's necessarily a bad thing; it's a very different context from LA.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 30th 1:52 AM
sb, thanks for that update. I lived in SF from 1991 to 1999, both in the "Tendernob" and SOMA. If the funding for the Central Subway has been secured, great! Glad to hear it. As for the central rail station, I am also glad to hear that it finally got the green light. I have been out of the loop for a while, so my access to these updates has been limited.
It looks to me like the diagram of the Central Subway crosses Market at 3rd Street; does the plan include a direct underground connection to the BART/MUNI station at Montgomery or Stockton (Powell Station)? It doesn't seem so from the drawing.
sb
User ID: 8729803 Jul 30th 2:15 AM
that's a good question. in fact, i've never been able to ascertain the answer. knowing muni, they'll build a station below third just south of market and require riders to walk up to the street, around the corner and back down to transfer. and you thought MTA was stupid ...
the tendernob - yay! that's my hood.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 30th 7:29 AM
Oh NO! SF has gotten the rapid bug idea too, sh**! man fight that all the way. I dont know if you have taken the rapid bus here SB, but it sucks and doesnt really get you anyway that much faster. Dude, get people together and fight that thing and push for the subway. You should have no problem getting people to rally with you. Here's a couple of slogans for the rally: "Dont give SF residents LA's rapid joke! give SF real PT, give SF more urban rail". Here's another: "Rapid bus= Rapid Joke for Pt Subways= better PT for SF" I know they arent brillant, but it gets the message. I would even go up there to help you rally, as a tourist I would show them that even their major economic base would perfer Metros rather then bus. I know that would catch their attention.
Paul
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 2:31 PM
I wounder why S.F. hasnt started to put the rest of its rail lines underground. I can understand about the BART, but why not MUNI?
Paul
sb
User ID: 7650093 Jul 29th 2:46 PM
long story. short answer: cost + compactness + existing ridership + competition w/ regional projects. what local activists are fighting for is fewer stops and more preempts - there's no good reason the muni metro can't be more of a modern light-rail system rather than old-fashioned streetcars.
that said, a new subway should open in 2012. cost: $449M/mi.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 2:48 PM
which new subway? the 3rd street metro?
Paul
sb
User ID: 7650093 Jul 29th 2:57 PM
phase two - the central subway (SOMA-union square-chinatown).
www.sfmuni.com/aboutmun/3rdover.htm
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 29th 7:01 PM
It is important to note that "Muni and the City are actively pursuing funding for the Central Subway." (from the website). In 1999 the city announced that they did not expect the underground line (Phase II) to be built for another 30 years. I don't believe that has changed.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 8:45 PM
WOW! 30 years. I think SF needs to start putting their rail lines underground now. Just like we're going to get a big jump in population in coming years, so too will San Francisco. I wonder how much worst traffic will get in SF in another 10-20 years.
Paul
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 29th 9:07 PM
San Francisco won't grow as fast as LA because it has an active anti-growth political constituency. It is also pretty tiny, geographically (slightly larger than Hollywood). San Francisco has also LOST population in recent years, but the Bay Area is gaining people.
The dense areas of SF DO have the rail lines underground. What would really help up there would be to create a central railroad station downtown, with connections to all the regional rail lines.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 29th 10:14 PM
Why is the bay losing people? I love the area and couldnt see why anyone would leave. Well may be because the cost of living is so high, but thats the only reason. Does anyone know by how many people SF will grow in the next 10-25 years?
Paul
Matt K
User ID: 0658904 Jul 29th 10:33 PM
Paul, the "dot bomb" internet industry collapse sent a lot of high tech professionals scurrying out of the Bay Area. The insurmountable housing shortage didn't help much either:
*********
S.F. losing population fastest of U.S. cities
Census shows drop of 1.5% to 764,049
Genaro C. Armas, Associated Press
Thursday, July 10, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...7/10/CITIES.TMP
Anyone who has seen the proliferation of "For Rent" signs in windows and the moving trucks lumbering down San Francisco's narrow streets already knows what the Census Bureau's latest data reveal: that the city's population isn't what it used to be.
In fact, San Francisco lost a greater percentage of its residents than any other large city in the country between July 2001 and July 2002, declining 1.5 percent to just 764,049. The report also shows that San Francisco's population dropped nearly 2 percent between 2000 and 2002 after rising 7 percent over the 1990s.
Other Bay Area cities -- Sunnyvale, Daly City, San Jose, Oakland, Santa Clara and Fremont -- also showed declines, according to the new report, which ranks the country's urban centers with populations over 100,000.
The declines are not surprising because of the dot-com bust, high regional housing costs and the state's lagging economy, said Hans Johnson, a demographer with the Public Policy Institute of California.
Nationwide, people seem to be heading toward the sunny, once-sleepy and more affordable suburbs of Southern California, Nevada and Arizona.
Three Los Angeles suburbs -- Irvine, Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga -- were also among the 10 fastest-growing cities, as well as the San Diego suburb of Chula Vista. Growth in these areas was mainly spurred by the availability of more affordable homes and cheaper cost of living. The Central Valley towns of Modesto and Stockton ranked 18th and 21st, respectively, in population growth, each jumping more than 3 percent.
sb
User ID: 8729803 Jul 30th 12:43 AM
ok, couple things.
a) the central subway is on track for a 2013 opening. there have been some rumblings from the feds about cost-per-new-rider (*not* good - it's just hugely expensive to tunnel under downtown, not to mention existing bus ridership in the corridor is very high), but no one seriously doubts it'll get funded.
b) san francisco has lost population since the 2000 census, sure, but that was after substantial growth in the '90s. its official 2000 count was the city's highest ever.
c) that said, it's true that the dot-bust is just killing us right now. and NIMBY-ism means we've probably just about maxed out long-term.
d) the 'central railroad station' you mention, bert, should break ground w/in a couple of years - the new transbay terminal, on the site of the existing bus station on the edge of the financial district. it will be the HSR terminus as well as the final stop for caltrain from san jose (which will be electrified to provide metro-like service) and is one block from the embarcadero BART/muni station. a ped tunnel may connect them.
sb
User ID: 8729803 Jul 30th 12:47 AM
oh, about this comment:
The dense areas of SF DO have the rail lines underground.
well, yes and no. i live in the densest census tract west of new york - it's just shy of 100,000 people per square mile - and i'm about a 15-min walk from the nearest BART station. it may not sound like much, but they've been talking about a subway under my street for decades, and the new long-term plan we're about to vote on will put it off for another generation. we've caught your rapid bus bug up here. not that that's necessarily a bad thing; it's a very different context from LA.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Jul 30th 1:52 AM
sb, thanks for that update. I lived in SF from 1991 to 1999, both in the "Tendernob" and SOMA. If the funding for the Central Subway has been secured, great! Glad to hear it. As for the central rail station, I am also glad to hear that it finally got the green light. I have been out of the loop for a while, so my access to these updates has been limited.
It looks to me like the diagram of the Central Subway crosses Market at 3rd Street; does the plan include a direct underground connection to the BART/MUNI station at Montgomery or Stockton (Powell Station)? It doesn't seem so from the drawing.
sb
User ID: 8729803 Jul 30th 2:15 AM
that's a good question. in fact, i've never been able to ascertain the answer. knowing muni, they'll build a station below third just south of market and require riders to walk up to the street, around the corner and back down to transfer. and you thought MTA was stupid ...
the tendernob - yay! that's my hood.
PaulC
User ID: 0492334 Jul 30th 7:29 AM
Oh NO! SF has gotten the rapid bug idea too, sh**! man fight that all the way. I dont know if you have taken the rapid bus here SB, but it sucks and doesnt really get you anyway that much faster. Dude, get people together and fight that thing and push for the subway. You should have no problem getting people to rally with you. Here's a couple of slogans for the rally: "Dont give SF residents LA's rapid joke! give SF real PT, give SF more urban rail". Here's another: "Rapid bus= Rapid Joke for Pt Subways= better PT for SF" I know they arent brillant, but it gets the message. I would even go up there to help you rally, as a tourist I would show them that even their major economic base would perfer Metros rather then bus. I know that would catch their attention.
Paul