Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams
The supposed "L" line between SF Zoo and Balboa Park via SF State would be a most ridiculous idea ever, especially that, if it happens, it will make transferring difficult at West Portal wherein there is no stop for either the L or M immediately after the trains exit (or before those enter) the portal. Whoever crafted that idea should really make a second look at the current layout of West Portal Station (at Ulloa Street) so that they can see for themselves how to make such an arrangement. What can also be compromised would be the operation of the K/T-Ingleside/Third Street, which, in itself, is already a long route (the inbound trains switch signs at West Portal from the K to the T for Sunnydale)... I'm already happy with how things are, actually.
What I would like to see more would be lengthening their trains (like the ones I found on the S-Shuttle between Embarcadero and West Portal Stations) so that they can carry even more passengers on the busiest lines, most especially on the N-Judah and L-Taraval lines. The K/T shall be expanded to 2 cars so that their operations can be optimized more, while the J and the M shall keep their current configurations.
|
This seems to be a growing trend recently. Some armchair transit planner realizes that transit in their city is lacking (surprise surprise), gets a copy of Illustrator, and then starts drawing pretty lines over a map. Someone also made a similarly-looking Squarespace site for an equally implausible idea for a streetcar network in Denver not too long ago, but they then dismissed this site as being too "wonky" for wanting to discuss cost projections and ridership numbers.
A lot of people who do these projects and think they're viable do them more for the zeal of graphic design while not taking into consideration so much
how people actually use transit, and they often grossly underestimate the costs of infrastructure investments, if they even take that into consideration at all. Do you think anyone is
actually trying to go from the zoo to Balboa Park, or are the majority of people on that side of town really trying to get downtown? Making a line like that would greatly reduce the number of one-seat rides that probably thousands of people already enjoy while creating a line that connects two places that don't really need to be connected. There are so many problems with that plan that it doesn't make any realistic sense.
To me, their biggest (and valid) criticism of there not being enough "true" subway service on the Market subway is something that could, and will, be easily solved with more Castro Shuttle service. It's also buried in the Siemens LRV order press release that the new rail fleet that Muni just ordered will be able to run in up to four car consists, which should result in a dramatic increase in capacity on Muni Metro. This is an example of a reasonable, medium-term investment that produces a cost effective solution without trying to graft the Paris metro onto San Francisco. Though these kinds of projects like Muni's fleet renewal aren't conducive to sexy Squarespace mockup sites or behance likes, I suppose.
Prev
). Is it a sure thing that the FRA will relax regulations once the deadline for PTC occurs? I've heard a lot of talk, but nothing concrete. On that note, momentum does appear toward that direction. It is frustrating that we may have gotten a better deal, but Measure Q passed in 2008. Enough time has passed already. If we were just starting to buy the trains now, I couldn't see it opening with the current schedule. But it just shows the stupidity of having the rules in the first place.
If it does happen, then I would go a bit confused as to which line goes to both my school and Stonestown. Not to mention, there have been competing stories as to how the M should be aligned beyond West Portal wherein there were plans to either:
Linear Mode
