SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[tyler82]

I'll be there, thanks for the info!

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^For $2.4 billion, we could provide free taxi service to every passenger who alights from CalTrain at 4th & Townsend for a long time.

Have you tried catching a taxi at rush hour? Even with an adequate supply of taxi, there would still be long lines as people wait for the people in front of them to board their taxi.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Have you tried catching a taxi at rush hour? Even with an adequate supply of taxi, there would still be long lines as people wait for the people in front of them to board their taxi.

i'm sure he wasn't serious but adding 29,000 taxi trips a day between 4th and king and 1st and mission is probably about the least responsible thing i could imagine from an urban, environmental, aesthetic, and social perspective.

[kenratboy]

LOL - I like how its a 'stupid car'. Thats cute. Are there smart cars other than the SMART Car?

$2.4 billion is a lot for what doesn't amount to a very significant piece - but I think its a critical thing that needs to happen in order for Transbay Terminal to be a success. For what is planned, it would not be acceptable to have to get off a train, fight your way to Transbay, and get on another train. The whole point is to get TO Transbay Terminal, not kinda near it. It annoys me to see huge projects being half-assed and not really a complete and unified system.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

$2.4 billion is a lot for what doesn't amount to a very significant piece - but I think its a critical thing that needs to happen in order for Transbay Terminal to be a success. For what is planned, it would not be acceptable to have to get off a train, fight your way to Transbay, and get on another train. The whole point is to get TO Transbay Terminal, not kinda near it. It annoys me to see huge projects being half-assed and not really a complete and unified system.

The sad fact is that if the California high speed rail system isn't developed, there won't be another train to board once you get there. I really don't see what the new transit center is going to do to improve mass transit that much. If you think about it, couldn't all the money be better spent in another way, such as expanding the subway system? I know that the center will (or could) be stunning, but...

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

The sad fact is that if the California high speed rail system isn't developed, there won't be another train to board once you get there. I really don't see what the new transit center is going to do to improve mass transit that much. If you think about it, couldn't all the money be better spent in another way, such as expanding the subway system? I know that the center will (or could) be stunning, but...

Might it make CalTrain more desirable to ride? I am not thinking as much about the larger stuff as just improving transit in the Bay Area. These issues are definitely beyond my scope of understanding.

[BTinSF]

^^^The main argument for the terminal is that it brings CalTrain closer to downtown--that is, 1st & Mission vs 4th & Townsend.

My argument all along, not widely shared I realize, is that:

- "Downtown" is moving south and encompassing South of Market so that 4th & Townsend will not be all that far anyway, but with Mission Bay's offices and labs as a commuter destination also, ultimately 4th & Townsend could be a good spot for the terminal

- If the Central Subway is built, CalTrain riders will have direct access to the traditional Financial District (and BART) via 2 LRV/subway routes (the N to Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations; the T to Powell Station, as well as access to Union Square, Moscone Center and Chinatown. Arguably, this is as good or better access than being 1 or 2 blocks from Montgomery Station (with a tunnel to get there) alone.

- Even if you consider the multimodal TransBay Terminal idea better than a separate CalTrain with the connections I've outlined, is it over $2 billion better?

- I don't consider the proposed TransBay towers as part of the issue because I think developers would be happy to build highrises--as high as they are allowed--in that area. The problem there is simply that the political will may not exist to raise the height limits unless it must be done to raise the money to build the terminal. So, in the end, we are saying that if we want the highrises, we have to spend $2.4 billion on an arguably unnecessary terminal to get them. I just can't accept the notion that we have to waste this kind of money for that reason.

[Gordo]

How about this - we don't waste $1.4 billion on the Central Subway (sure to exceed $2 billion anyway) and send that money to help build BRT on all of the major transit corridors in the city and still have a few hundred million left to go towards the TTC?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Gordo

How about this - we don't waste $1.4 billion on the Central Subway (sure to exceed $2 billion anyway) and send that money to help build BRT on all of the major transit corridors in the city and still have a few hundred million left to go towards the TTC?

If that were possible, then we would be having a different discussion entirely. Alas, that isn't possible. The federal funds are earmarked only for the Central Subway. We cannot use a penny of that for any other purpose, and if we don't build the CS then we lose all those funds to some other city.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by fflint

If that were possible, then we would be having a different discussion entirely. Alas, that isn't possible. The federal funds are earmarked only for the Central Subway. We cannot use a penny of that for any other purpose, and if we don't build the CS then we lose all those funds to some other city.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But the federal funds are less than $800 million of the total. And my view is: wasting money is wasting money, regardless of where the majority of that money comes from. If the $800 million of Federal money can be used on a better project in another city, it should be. And if the remaining $600 million could be used on better projects here, it should be. Saying that we should build the Central Subway simply because we have earmarked "free" money is like saying I should buy a $50,000 GMC Yukon instead of a $20,000 Scion because GM is giving me a $10,000 rebate.

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But the federal funds are less than $800 million of the total. And my view is: wasting money is wasting money, regardless of where the majority of that money comes from. If the $800 million of Federal money can be used on a better project in another city, it should be. And if the remaining $600 million could be used on better projects here, it should be. Saying that we should build the Central Subway simply because we have earmarked "free" money is like saying I should buy a $50,000 GMC Yukon instead of a $20,000 Scion because GM is giving me a $10,000 rebate.

I don't agree that it is wasting money. We need to think long-term. Its not necessarily what is needed now, but think 50 years from now. More than likely, there will be some form of high speed rail by then. At the very least, there will be commuter rail connections to the east bay, Sacramento and god-willing, Marin and Sonoma County. SF needs a transit hub of this order.

I agree with BT that the 4th & Townsend area is developing rapidly. I do feel that it needs a robust transit infrastructure (which it currently has). However, I just don't foresee it ever having the density (businesses, high rise condos, transit) that we are or will see in the Fremont & Mission area. Therefore, it is a better bet to build the transit center there. It may seem like an astronomical sum ($2.4 billion), but over the long-run, it is a very sound investment.

[Gordo]

To be clear - I am VERY, VERY, VERY much in favor of the Transbay Transit Center. My comments were in regards to the Central Subway.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by Gordo

How about this - we don't waste $1.4 billion on the Central Subway (sure to exceed $2 billion anyway) and send that money to help build BRT on all of the major transit corridors in the city and still have a few hundred million left to go towards the TTC?

Subway trains can travel significantly faster than BRT and light rail as they do not need to slow down at intersections to avoid absent minded pedestrians or agressive drivers going through red lights. Their relative speed, compared to buses or light rail, makes subway trains an attractive alternative to cars.

[WonderlandPark]

It may be time for SF to start thinking like NYC is. A whole new pair of tunnels to link NJ to Penn Station is in the starting phases. SF should be thinking the same, a new tunnel to serve a long distance commuter rail need. SF to Oakland's station then skipping BART territory and connecting Stockton, Sacramento and the like. True long distance commuter rail. Housing may be stagnant, but it isn't getting cheaper, so there is still a strong incentive to build out in Stockton and Vallejo. Plus, if done right, this can bring future HSR into the city of San Francisco. Of course, the Transbay Terminal would be the logical end hub of a CR and HSR system.

And there is no practical way BRT would serve the same need as the Central Subway. The blocks, hills and congestion of the area would make the effort silly. I am a BRT fan, it can work, but dense inner-city is not the place for it.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Subway trains can travel significantly faster than BRT and light rail as they do not need to slow down at intersections to avoid absent minded pedestrians or agressive drivers going through red lights. Their relative speed, compared to buses or light rail, makes subway trains an attractive alternative to cars.

I wasn't disputing that - that's obviously a fact (except maybe in Muni subways, that is). The point is cost/benefit analysis. Even if we leave out the $800 mil in "free" money from the Feds, is a subway with three/four total stops - and only one in Chinatown the best place to spend $600 mil? Is it better to upgrade service for X number of passengers by 50% or 4X number of passengers by 30%?

If we had loads of money to throw around, I'd say build subways everywhere, but we don't. The Transbay Transit Center is worth the money, IMO, because it improves access to and from the City by such a huge amount. But building the Central Subway sets work on other corridors within the City back not years, but decades. Do you seriously think we gain/keep more riders from their cars by improving one corridor by a lot instead of lots of corridors by a good bit?

Some more info:

http://www.examiner.com/a-833889~One...nly_lanes.html

[nequidnimis]

Yes, I believe that in order to get drivers out of their cars, you need to offer them a public transit experience that comes close to the convenience of their car. If it isn't close, it will be a simple decision for them to just keep driving. An incremental improvement to bus service, while nice for the bus riders, is immaterial to drivers.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Yes, I believe that in order to get drivers out of their cars, you need to offer them a public transit experience that comes close to the convenience of their car. If it isn't close, it will be a simple decision for them to just keep driving. An incremental improvement to bus service, while nice for the bus riders, is immaterial to drivers.

Perhaps, but we've got decades before we'll have a good subway system that is more than Market St and Stockton (only to Chinatown). Do you honestly think that the Central Subway will get anyone to give up their car? That isn't even one of the goals of it - it's to provide better service to one of the most heavily used transit corridors. The vehicle trips that might disappear because of the Central Subway are negligible - except for buses.

You only need to look to other cities (LA's Orange line is the closest full-scale BRT to us) to see that a fancy bus with dedicated lanes can get plenty of people out of their cars.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^The main argument for the terminal is that it brings CalTrain closer to downtown--that is, 1st & Mission vs 4th & Townsend.

I don't think that's true. It is a true multimodal facility. The existing facility needs to be replaced. There is no downtown train station which could serve either Caltrain or High Speed Rail.

Downtown may be 'moving south' but there is no scenario at any time in the next 25 to 50 years in which there is a density of development centered around 4th & Townsend that comes anywhere near the density of development in the current Financial District. With the exception of a small number of potential air rights parcels, most of that area has already been planned, and most of that has already been developed. Envisinioning King Street as the next Market Street is just silly.

San Francisco needs a commuter rail terminal downtown. If BART served more than 1/3 of the population of the bay area, I would say we already had one... but it doesn't, and it never will. The (optimistic) projected combined ridership at the Transbay Terminal is almost 140,000 per day. Asking even a significant fraction of those people to get off their trains and transfer to a subway (which also has not even been built and can never compete in terms of speed) ignores what many would consider the very first rule of transit : minimize transfers.

I find it hard to understand that anyone who believes in density, urbanism, the environment, and cities in general would prefer to leave San Francisco's main rail connection more than a mile from downtown....

[nequidnimis]

LA's orange line is on a former railway alignment and features therefore a limited number of intersections with surface roads. Its operating speed is probably comparable to that of rail.

[tyler82]

If anybody wants to meet up beforehand and plan out some aggressive talking points we can use together at the meeting, PM me!