SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[Busy Bee]

And time will tell if this platform limitation really leads to significant overcrowding or operational limitations or that was just hysteria.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by k1052

All I can think about seeing the Central Subway videos and pics is how grossly overbuilt the stations are for two car light rail. An absolute fortune was wasted here.

Oh no! the subway stations are too subway stationy!

lol

[Nouvellecosse]

For a city of SF's status I certainly wouldn't want to see anything less than what was built.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by tech12

Oh no! the subway stations are too subway stationy!

lol

Yeah, I don't really understand the hysteria about the project especially as it relates to cost. It costs a lot to build stuff in the US. The new LAX Metro station is going to cost at $900 million, for a single above ground station. It is what it is. Compared to that, the Central Subway at $1.95 billion with 1.7 mile underground subway, 3 underground stations, and 0.4 miles at grade extension and 1 surface station is an absolute bargain.

[k1052]

Not caring what anything costs or that the actual transportation part of what gets built ends up compromised due to that is pretty American. It's also why we get so little for our money.

[Busy Bee]

Regarding the "design" choices at the Union Sq/Market St station:

http://designbythebay.com/central-su...t-station-ums/

[CharlesCO]

Overbuilt?! If anything, it's extremely underbuilt because of a number of serious design compromises. The line will never be able to carry more than 2-car trains, which will handicap the line's ridership potential for decades to come, barring some costly retrofits.

[Busy Bee]

Unless they do what i mentioned above. Aside from rolling stock interchangeability, there's no reason they couldn't operate a vehicle tailored to the T Line and differemt than the rest of Muni Metro. The capacity of a 3 car train could be fit into a consist that maxxed out the platform length. This woyld make moot any concern about what a "crippling" calamity the shorter platforms are. A good deal of capacity is lost when double ended cars are coupled together.

[homebucket]

I’m guessing it won’t be an issue until the North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, Fort Mason and the Marina District extension is built.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Regarding the "design" choices at the Union Sq/Market St station:

http://designbythebay.com/central-su...t-station-ums/

Heh. It's interesting the mental gymnastics they had to go through to justify it. It shouldn't be too difficult to renovate the walls in the future if needed though.

[homebucket]

I think what is getting lost in the chatter is the primary purpose of this project. Something that can't be appreciated by those that don't live or visit here and are only looking at numbers on a screen. And that's the improved connectivity between multiple highly diverse and underserved communities. Chinatown, Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley.

With personal experience traveling in between these communities via bus, it's obvious this new line is a significant improvement that will help with overcrowding, basically tying together the super busy, standing room only 30 Stockton and 45 Union/Stockton routes with 8 Bayshore and 15 Bayview Hunters Point. Trains will be always be more comfortable and more inviting than buses, and with a dedicated subway line and improved transit signal priority, it'll be faster. Overall, it'll help to bring more tourists and patrons to Chinatown, Union Square, and SoMa (and in the future North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, Fort Mason, and the Marina District) and better link it to residential neighborhoods where a lot of essential workers live, which is kinda the whole point.

Yes, it was expensive, but we're talking about deep tunneling under the 2nd densest area in the US outside of Manhattan, and under an existing two level Market Street subway.

[homebucket]

S.F.’s Van Ness BRT created a ridership boom for Muni. Here’s what the data shows
Ricardo Cano
Nov. 3, 2022

Muni’s 49-Van Ness/Mission bus line has skyrocketed in popularity since the spring premiere of San Francisco’s first bus rapid transit project.

Monthly ridership data obtained from the city’s Municipal Transportation Agency shows that the 49 line — the main benefactor of the 2-mile stretch of red-concrete, center-running lanes known as Van Ness BRT — is now more popular than it was before the pandemic.

Ridership on the 49 line shot up 60% since January, and its ridership recovery has far outpaced Muni’s other bus and rail lines with the highest ridership.

The 49 line had about 740,000 total boardings in September, up from 549,000 in March, the month before the BRT project’s April 1 premiere. That ridership haul puts the 49’s popularity behind only the 38-Geary and 14-Mission lines, which that have long been the Muni system’s workhorses. Those two lines also operate more frequently with the help of rapid routes.

The data, which shows overall Muni ridership is at 60% of pre-COVID levels, helps validate the payoff of a transit project that took $346 million and six years of construction to complete. City transportation leaders had predicted — and hoped — that the BRT project, criticized for its delays and cost overruns, would bring faster transit travel times and higher ridership on one of the city’s busiest corridors.

Early data from the transportation agency showed that the BRT lanes brought a 35% travel time savings for northbound trips on the Van Ness corridor.

Those rail-like transit speeds, in effect, have lured more riders to the line.

The data comes with some caveats. Another Muni line that would benefit from Van Ness BRT, the 47 bus, remains suspended. Though it was less popular than the 49 before the pandemic, the 47 drew roughly 300,000 boardings each month. This means that overall Muni ridership on the Van Ness corridor is still technically below 2019 levels.

It’s unclear whether SFMTA will bring back the 47 bus, or whether the agency plans to bump frequencies on the 49, which, at six-minute intervals, is already one of Muni’s most frequent lines.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/artic...m-17556984.php

[homebucket]

Muni’s New Battery Electric Buses Are Being Spotted in the Wild
4 DECEMBER 2022/SF NEWS/JOE KUKURA

Look ma, no wires! Yet another new fleet of Muni buses has arrived, so keep your eyes peeled, because you may notice the new battery-electric buses as they continue in their evaluation and testing phase.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has had five all-electric muni buses, called “battery-electric buses,” for more than a year and a half. But you don’t see them out much, because they’re still in evaluation and testing. But have a look below, as a few more of these electric battery buses have arrived, with their distinctive, unique color and a logo that is not unlike what you see on Shazam's chest.



This is not the first time these buses have been out in San Francisco. SFMTA and Muni acquired the first of these buses in May 2021. But apparently a few more of these new electric vehicles have rolled in recently, so they may be seen in public more frequently.

“Muni  had initially ordered nine  battery-electric  buses, three each from  three manufacturers,  New Flyer, BYD USA and Proterra,  for an 18-month  tryout,” Muni said in their announcement. “As the program evolved, a fourth manufacturer, Nova Bus, was added to the program who would bring in three additional e-buses for the extensive testing. Currently five e-buses have arrived. The rest of seven will be delivered by the end of 2022.”  

“Leading up to this launch, the SFMTA has been working with PG&E  to complete and update the charging infrastructure, called  ChargePoint Express Plus,  needed to power our new  battery electric fleet,” they add. “Each bus takes about four hours to charge and the electrical support equipment is enclosed within the Electrical Equipment Center directly adjacent to the charging stations.”

https://sfist.com/2022/12/04/munis-n...d-in-the-wild/

[Busy Bee]

I'm assuming these are being tested on routes with the most reasonable grades currently operated by diesel or CNG? Please please tell me Muni isn't remotely sniffing around the idea of trolleybus OCS removal...

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm assuming these are being tested on routes with the most reasonable grades currently operated by diesel or CNG? Please please tell me Muni isn't remotely sniffing around the idea of trolleybus OCS removal...

They're currently being tested on the following routes, which SFMTA views as their most challenging routes:
1 California (trolleybus)
9 San Bruno (biodiesel-electric hybrid)
22 Fillmore (trolleybus)
24 Divisadero (trolleybus)
29 Sunset (biodiesel-electric hybrid)
44 O'Shaughnessy (biodiesel-electric hybrid)

If their goal is to achieve zero emissions and carbon neutrality, then I think it would make sense that after reliability is established, battery electric buses will first replace diesel hybrid buses and then trolley buses.

[Busy Bee]

Replacing trolleybuses would be a collosal mistake. A battery bus that inefficiently carries its power plant onboard is never going to be more efficient than wired overhead power delivery, even with infrastructure maintenance taken into account as the physical OCS delivery system is already constructed. And thats not even getting into the historic importance of the wired trolleybus network. I sincerely hope that is not in fact what they are intending to do. That would be a sad day imo.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Replacing trolleybuses would be a collosal mistake. A battery bus that inefficiently carries its power plant onboard is never going to be more efficient than wired overhead power delivery, even with infrastructure maintenance taken into account as the physical OCS delivery system is already constructed. And thats not even getting into the historic importance of the wired trolleybus network. I sincerely hope that is not in fact what they are intending to do. That would be a sad day imo.

It just says the goal is to move to an all-electric fleet and carbon neutrality by 2040. Does not specify if it has to be battery electric only or a combo of both battery electric and trolleybus. So I imagine the trolleybus system will remain in place for as long as it remains viable. Technically, SFMTA is already the greenest transit system in North America, so swapping out the hybrids with battery electric shouldn't be too difficult of a task to achieve zero emissions.

[Busy Bee]

I think thats likely what they mean. Essentially replacing the remaining fuel burning fleet to electric and not in fact scrapping the physical trolleybus network in favor of inferior and disadvantaged (by comparison) battery electric buses. That is a relief as I'd be extremely shocked that they would make such a decision.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Replacing trolleybuses would be a collosal mistake.

...it was a colossal mistake nationwide.

While doing my own research more than 10 years ago, I read the annual reports of a typical for-profit streetcar operator, and part of their motivation to replace the electric trolleybuses with diesel buses was that the wire could be sold for scrap and fund a special dividend payout for shareholders.

You can't make this stuff up.

[Busy Bee]

Yeah pretty gross. Most of the reason the failed NYW&B was so eradicated and not just mothballed or landbanked for possible future sale or use is because the r.o.w. and everything nailed down or otherwise in it was ripped up to sell for scrap to pay back creditors. Ive also heard that some was scrapped for the war effort. Sickening either way.