SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[phoenixboi08]

Are the gaps in the paneling final?

I assume so...they've been in a lot of the renders (http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/07/Bus-Plaza1.jpg), at least.

[hotwheels]

Upcoming Transbay Tower Revised by Pelli Clarke Pelli
(http://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/02/upcoming-transbay-tower-revised-pelli-clarke-pelli)Pelli Clark Pelli with HKS Architects has made design revisions to their Transbay Parcel F proposal, the final building expected to rise within the transformative Transbay District in San Francisco. The 64-storey tower at 550 Howard Street now features a gentler overall expression, swapping hard right angles and asymmetry for a softer and more elegant sculptural identity.

[Pedestrian]

^^Thanks for posting. For everybody's info, this building has a thread of its own: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217919&page=6

[mt_climber13]

Looks like this will indefinitely be the worlds most expensive bus station:

http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Trump-administration-deals-a-big-setback-to-10941880.php

[Pedestrian]

Sign the petition to restore funding for CalTrain electrification: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-9600-american-jobs-tell-fta-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification

[timbad]

Sign the petition to restore funding for CalTrain electrification: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-9600-american-jobs-tell-fta-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification

done

[1977]

Sign the petition to restore funding for CalTrain electrification: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-9600-american-jobs-tell-fta-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification

Done!

[viewguysf]

Sign the petition to restore funding for CalTrain electrification: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-9600-american-jobs-tell-fta-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification

I also signed it though doubt the Trump administration is paying much attention to these.

[Pedestrian]

I also signed it though doubt the Trump administration is paying much attention to these.

You are probably right but according to the Examiner this one was initiated by CalTrain itself so maybe they have some sort of lobbying campaign in mind of which this is just a part. What has happened seems counter to any sort of "infrastructure" effort so maybe if that is pointed out forcefully enough . . . .

[mt_climber13]

Infrastructure to Republicans means "freeways because black people ride public transit"

Although I heard that Trump wants to be the high speed rail president, so maybe he can push through a network of trains throughout the U.S. Will he leave out the Bay Area out of spite? I wouldn't put it past him. All I know is that the current California HSR mess needs to be thrown away and start over. As of now it would be the slowest high speed train in the world. CA is supposed to be a leader of technology and brainpower, when is our infrastructure going to start reflecting that?

[Pedestrian]

^^Let's be clear: What has been done to CalTrain was done because the California Republican Congressional delegation jumped on the brand new Sec. of Transportation before she could even warm the seat in her new office and got her to do this (not because they hate CalTrain but because CalTrain electrification is essential to bringing HSR to SF). I doubt she was really familiar with the issues and Trump himself probably knows nothing about it. That's why I have hope for making some waves right now when they can say, "You know, on second thought maybe we don't want to do that." Maybe Trump himself might whisper that in her ear. Not to start a political discussion, but IMHO Trump is not really a Republican. He just plays one on TV (sometimes).

[Busy Bee]

Infrastructure to Republicans means "freeways because black people ride public transit"

Don't be ridiculous. Infrastructure to Republicans means "roads and pipelines and other status quo stuff because everything else is foreign or liberal or agenda 21 or, err, something.

[Pedestrian]

Don't be ridiculous. Infrastructure to Republicans means "roads and pipelines and other status quo stuff because everything else is foreign or liberal or agenda 21 or, err, something.

It very much depends on local issues. In California it is Central Valley farmers who are almost all Republicans who want more dams and water projects and libral Democrats who want to tear down the dams we have to save the fish.

The one type of infrastructure the right seems pretty uniformly opposed to is high speed rail and I don't really know why. I suspect it's just rural/suburban vs urban with a hint of opposition to big spending on anything and a lot of "we're against anything Dems are for." I hoped (and still hope) Trump might get beyond that but whether Congress would let him actually spend money on intercity rail I doubt.

[fimiak]

^^Let's be clear: What has been done to CalTrain was done because the California Republican Congressional delegation jumped on the brand new Sec. of Transportation before she could even warm the seat in her new office and got her to do this (not because they hate CalTrain but because CalTrain electrification is essential to bringing HSR to SF). I doubt she was really familiar with the issues and Trump himself probably knows nothing about it. That's why I have hope for making some waves right now when they can say, "You know, on second thought maybe we don't want to do that." Maybe Trump himself might whisper that in her ear. Not to start a political discussion, but IMHO Trump is not really a Republican. He just plays one on TV (sometimes).

I have no knowledge of this, but I would assume that he would push for LA-Vegas, Houston-Dallas, NYC-DC first.

[Pedestrian]

^^

California’s top Republican ignored business plea to help Caltrain
By Matier & Ross, San Francisco Chronicle
February 22, 2017 Updated: February 22, 2017 6:00am

Business leaders at the Bay Area Council business group did their best at a recent fundraiser for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to persuade the Bakersfield Republican to get behind Caltrain electrification — but no dice.

McCarthy and the rest of the California GOP congressional delegation urged the Trump administration to delay a $647 million federal grant for the Caltrain upgrade as a way of targeting Gov. Jerry Brown’s high-speed rail project, which would ride Caltrain’s rails from the South Bay to San Francisco. Last week, the administration went along with the delay. Caltrain says that could doom it to a future of slow, inefficient diesel trains . . . .

“(McCarthy) said he supported electrification of Caltrain, but said the problem was that the $647 million was co-mingled with high-speed rail money and that the line would be used by high-speed rail,” said Bay Area Council President Jim Wunderman . . . .

Wunderman said the business group is still holding out hope that President Trump will include the Caltrain money in his upcoming budget . . . .


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-s-top-Republican-ignored-business-10949198.php?t=c6622821b1

[RubberToe]

Sign the petition to restore funding for CalTrain electrification: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-9600-american-jobs-tell-fta-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification

Done

[edwards]

03/03/17

Trees on their way to the terminal.

http://i.imgur.com/GCYiKbeh.jpg (http://imgur.com/a/1jyXk)

[Pedestrian]

Can we be brutally honest now?

Much as I love the architecture and all the new development it has engendered around it, including SF's first and probaby only (for a long time) supertall, the TransBay Terminal itself is probably an unnecessary and expensive white elephant. The current terminus of rail service into San Francisco is now, and was predictably when the Terminal project began, in the center of a bustling, growing part of the city which is well connected to the other dynamic parts by light rail transit. The difference for someone working in the business/financial districts to get to a train at 4th & King vs 1st & Mission would be minutes once the Central Subway is completed (although the capacity of platforms and the ability to run longer tains on that line should have been greater). We should have spend a much smaller sum on increased capacity for the subway and a new station at 4th & King vs the TransBay, something I argued at the time.

In any case, with the likelihood of getting federal funding to bring train service (commuter and high speed) into the new terminal fading, we are going to have a money hole on our hands and I have no confidence in the city's ability to deal with it.

Exclusive: Transbay Center picks manager to fill empty retail space as deficit looms
Apr 12, 2017, 2:12pm PDT Updated Apr 12, 2017, 5:30pm PDT
Roland Li
Reporter, San Francisco Business Times

The $2.4 billion Transbay Transit Center has picked a manager to fill the project's 100,000 square feet of retail, a crucial role as it faces a potential multimillion-dollar annual deficit.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority Board voted last month to pick an asset management team lead by developer Lincoln Property Co., according to a staff memo. A person familiar with the deal said a contract is expected to be signed in the next week.

Lincoln Property Co.'s team includes Colliers International (NASDAQ: CIGI), a global real estate brokerage, which will lease the retail space and Biederman Redevelopment Ventures, which is managing the project's rooftop park. The team also includes Pearl Media, which is handling promotional services, and Lavoz, which is in charge of marketing. The agreement is for six years, with a five-year extension option . . . .

The Transbay Transit Center, the largest under-construction transit center in the Western U.S., expects an operating loss for at least its first four years of operations, through fiscal year 2020-2021. The deficit could be as high as $20 million per year. The transit center only has funding secured for bus service and needs additional money to connect Caltrain and eventually a high-speed rail connection, as originally planned when construction started. The lack of projected traffic is expected to result in losses for the complex.

The center's 100,000 square feet of vacant retail is a large availability and comes on the market as Bay Area retailers have struggled with high rents, a shortage of workers who can afford to live in the region, and competition from online retailers. San Francisco's largest new retail project, the 250,000-square-foot 6x6 development in Mid-Market, finished construction last fall and doesn't have any tenants . . . .
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/04/12/transbay-center-tjpa-retail-asset-manager-lincoln.html?ana=e_bay_real&s=newsletter&ed=2017-04-13&u=kgyD14TZJI3FvbdA37c%2FluRxObP&t=1492105815&j=77933721

Who here thinks the city, confronted with those funding needs, is not going to cut and short-change funding to the Terminal in every way it can, skimping on maintenance, security and janitorial services and letting the place become a dirty, unsafe, disheveled homeless hangout?

[Pedestrian]

^^
Funds approved to study extension of Caltrain to downtown SF
By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez on April 12, 2017 1:21 pm
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority has approved funding toward the downtown extension of Caltrain, despite worries over the recent loss of federal funding for the agency’s much awaited electrification project.

It’s a small amount, just $5.4 million for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority toward preliminary engineering and a study on tunneling options, but commenters at Tuesday’s SFCTA meeting called it a major step forward for the imperiled Caltrain downtown extension.

“We need to maintain our commitment to it despite any threats from Washington,” said Peter Straus, a member of the San Francisco Transit Riders group, to the transportation authority . . . .

At Tuesday’s meeting the transportation authority, which is comprised of members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, took a cautious approach to even the small amount of funding toward the downtown extension given alleged mismanagement of funds by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, according to Supervisor Aaron Peskin . . . .

(A) commenter, Jim Patrick, accused the board of “dallying” for four months on the relatively small funding amount to the second phase of the project.

To that critique, Peskin responded that the authority took the small amount of funding “very seriously, particularly in light of the fact that with all due respect phase one has been an absolute nightmare as respect to cost overruns, delays, and mismanagement” . . . .

http://www.sfexaminer.com/funds-approved-study-extension-caltrain-downtown-sf/

$20 million a year to run the Terminal? Aw yeah, they'll fork that over with no problem (not).

[viewguysf]

Although it's not far away, it doesn't directly connect to BART either. I think they decided to go with the land they had, but I hear you.

[Pedestrian]

Although it's not far away, it doesn't directly connect to BART either. I think they decided to go with the land they had, but I hear you.

I'm still waiting to find out if the tunnel directly from the lower level of the TransBay to a BART station (Montgomery?) that was advertised when the terminal was being conceptualized will actually be part of the reality because I am unaware of any tunneling that's been done.

[viewguysf]

I'm still waiting to find out if the tunnel directly from the lower level of the TransBay to a BART station (Montgomery?) that was advertised when the terminal was being conceptualized will actually be part of the reality because I am unaware of any tunneling that's been done.

I remember that but we've heard nothing about it for a long time. It seems like that quietly died.

[timbad]

I remember that but we've heard nothing about it for a long time. It seems like that quietly died.

according to this fairly recent doc (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/Day%201-%201245_Ayerdi_Transbay%20Transit%20Center%20Project_0.pdf) (see map on I think fourth page), the passageway will be part of phase 2, if it ever happens

[Hockeymac18]

I'm still waiting to find out if the tunnel directly from the lower level of the TransBay to a BART station (Montgomery?) that was advertised when the terminal was being conceptualized will actually be part of the reality because I am unaware of any tunneling that's been done.

I believe it will be part of the second phase (Caltrain DTX). But yeah, I haven't heard much about it for a while.

[emanon]

I believe it will be part of the second phase (Caltrain DTX). But yeah, I haven't heard much about it for a while.

The current plan, as evaluated in the Supplemental EIR/EIS, would extend the train box from Beale to Main and move the planned pedestrian tunnel from Fremont to Beale. The pedestrian tunnel would be just below street level and connect to the BART Embarcadero Station at the concourse level. The DTX is projected to be completed in 2029.

[timbad]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2872/34145657101_e534a406ec_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2931/34145659151_49470012ae_b.jpg

[Pedestrian]

One heck of a bus station!

[1977]

Thanks for the update, timbad.

KPIX had a segment on TBT the other day as well. Nothing we didn't know, but has some views from and of the rooftop park.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/04/20/transbay-terminal-center-mall-rooftop-park-train-station/

[viewguysf]

I wonder if it would be feasible and possible to convert some of the retail areas to offices if they can't make it float as intended.

[fimiak]

Night shots 5/4

http://i.imgur.com/JM0Xy9E.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CMgLvdf.jpg

[dimondpark]

I wonder if it would be feasible and possible to convert some of the retail areas to offices if they can't make it float as intended.

This^ offices, a hotel, conference center, museum, an educational facility. hell its big enough to be a tv/film studio, etc. ijs the transit component apart from buses is uncertain but the massive building is being built so...

The thought of a mall is highly improbable imo. 6x6 has yet to land a single tenant!

[pseudolus]

The thought of a mall is highly improbable imo.
Maybe a giant Amazon Locker location for people to pick up their packages.

[Pedestrian]

This^ offices, a hotel, conference center, museum, an educational facility. hell its big enough to be a tv/film studio, etc. ijs the transit component apart from buses is uncertain but the massive building is being built so...

The thought of a mall is highly improbable imo. 6x6 has yet to land a single tenant!

I've never understood why it had to be so big, even if trains were to come into it from the beginning.

6x6 may have landed a tenant or 2 by now and not yet announced it but they seem to have some very specific criteria for whom they want to lease to. Maybe too specific. But it's their business--the rest of us just have to wait.

I am more concerned about this:

Exclusive: BART's ambitious retail vision crumbles
Apr 27, 2017, 2:28pm PDT Updated Apr 27, 2017, 2:50pm PDT
Katie Burke
Food/Hospitality/Retail Reporter, San Francisco Business Times

The hype around plans to bring new retail services to 43 BART stations reached a high with pronouncements that Dunkin' Donuts, Ghirardelli Chocolates and other big-name tenants were on their way to serve riders.

But BART's plans came to a screeching halt when the transit authority decided to back out of a lease agreement after its retail partner failed to meet several deadlines.

Several years ago , TransMart and BART struck an agreement to bring in a slew of high-quality tenants to stations across the Bay Area. By late 2015, TransMart — operating under the name Blinq — had launched pop-up retail spaces in the Embarcadero and Montgomery BART stations.

However, according to a memorandum acquired by the San Francisco Business Times, the deal between the developer and BART was left to expire late last year after TransMart didn't meet several of its contractual obligations . . . .
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/04/27/bart-transit-retail-at-44-bay-area-stations.html

If they can't find retail tenants for BART stations, I have to wonder how they expect to find them for a fancy bus station even if it is in the densest part of downtown (see Embaracdero Center where there has been a rotation of tenants for the 3 decades I've been watching).

[ardecila]

I've never understood why it had to be so big, even if trains were to come into it from the beginning.

6x6 may have landed a tenant or 2 by now and not yet announced it but they seem to have some very specific criteria for whom they want to lease to. Maybe too specific. But it's their business--the rest of us just have to wait.

I am more concerned about this:


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/04/27/bart-transit-retail-at-44-bay-area-stations.html

If they can't find retail tenants for BART stations, I have to wonder how they expect to find them for a fancy bus station even if it is in the densest part of downtown (see Embaracdero Center where there has been a rotation of tenants for the 3 decades I've been watching).

Sounds more like BART tried to offload all the risk onto a master lessee and the deal fell apart. This type of deal is common for airports or train terminals, where it's easier to achieve economies of scale, but may not work so well for a sprawling rail system.

Without a doubt, though, there is a market for retailers in BART stations, even if it's just for coffee shops and newsstands. TransMart sounds either incompetent, greedy or both... or maybe BART itself is to blame for imposing unrealistic requirements. Either way, this shouldn't be seen as a cautionary tale for Transbay.

[Pedestrian]

^^Reportedly BART/Transmart failed to sign a single retail lease. And I've always wondered why there were not loads of retail establishments in BART stations like in New York's subway. Given the shrinking footprint of bricks/mortar retail generally, I don't think the level of demand in the TransBay is at all a given.

[viewguysf]

^^Reportedly BART/Transmart failed to sign a single retail lease. And I've always wondered why there were not loads of retail establishments in BART stations like in New York's subway. Given the shrinking footprint of bricks/mortar retail generally, I don't think the level of demand in the TransBay is at all a given.

I don't either, which is why they need to start planning for practical alternatives now.

[timbad]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4252/34794788145_ea83422622_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4222/34754479056_eb6cba7aee_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4171/34794754025_6f0496613b_b.jpg

[TowerDude]

The world needs fewer offices and more places for education and learning ... if they can't turn it into retail turn it into a science museum.

[Pedestrian]

The world needs fewer offices and more places for education and learning ... if they can't turn it into retail turn it into a science museum.

How many of those do we need besides the Academy of Sciences and the Exploratorium? Besides, they've been trying to fund a city museum (in the Old Mint) for 20 years and can't come up with the money. This thing will sit there awaiting a Democratic administration that is California/San Francisco-friendly (so will help fund Phase 2). I just hope it can be kept clean, properly maintained and safe in the meantime.

[tech12]

How many of those do we need besides the Academy of Sciences and the Exploratorium? Besides, they've been trying to fund a city museum (in the Old Mint) for 20 years and can't come up with the money. This thing will sit there awaiting a Democratic administration that is California/San Francisco-friendly (so will help fund Phase 2). I just hope it can be kept clean, properly maintained and safe in the meantime.

ain't nothing wrong with more science museums. But yeah i think most of us would prefer trains, as planned, at that specific location, rather than a museum.

[Busy Bee]

...Besides, they've been trying to fund a city museum (in the Old Mint) for 20 years and can't come up with the money...

There's a lot comedy here.:P

[Pedestrian]

ain't nothing wrong with more science museums

No . . . if you have a funding source. Can't see any to make the TransBay a science museum (unless Mark Zuckerberg or Mark Benioff have made so much money last week they have to off-load some more).

There's a lot comedy here.:P

You are suggesting they restore the coin-making machines first? We'd need a new gold rush of course.

[mt_climber13]

HSR is so 1970s. Besides, the current plan for HSR in California would make it the slowest (and most expensive) HSR in the world. Does this make any sense at all??

It's probably for the best that the basement of the terminal is left vacant for the next decade or so while a better, faster, cheaper, more efficient form of high speed transit is invented, such as Elon Musk's hyperloop, which can then operate out of the terminal.

http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2015/01/15/elon-musk-hyperloop-test-track-may-be-built-in-texas/

http://www.livescience.com/50936-hyperloop-test-track-california.html

[Pedestrian]

^^At this point, all that is seriously under discussion is bringing CalTrain into the TransBay and getting commuters to what was then the center of the business district was the point of building a new TransBay. Any delays on HSR are really not the issue. And any delays in CalTrain negate much of the point of building the terminal in the first place. We could have just built a nicer/grander station in Mission Bay.

But since you bring it up, the plan for CA HSR would supposedly get people city center to city center, SF to LA in around 3 hours and that's fast enough. Faster is better, of course, but what really matters is that it's competitive with air and that it permits a round trip in a single day with plenty of time in the destination city. Considering time to get to the airport and put up with all the TSA nonsense these days, a 3 hour trip to/from LA is competitive. And six hours travel time on a round trip does let you go to LA from SF, spend the afternoon and evening there and return by a reasonable bedtime (pushing it a little, you could even take in a show). That's all I personally ask. I don't care if somebody else's HSR is faster and, once the tunnel exists, the HSR technology can be improved over time.

[viewguysf]

:iagree:

[botoxic]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAn7uOLXkAE2o-O.jpg:large
@pink94109 (https://twitter.com/pink94109) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/pink94109/status/867501193685155846)

[Busy Bee]

HSR is so 1970s. Besides, the current plan for HSR in California would make it the slowest (and most expensive) HSR in the world. Does this make any sense at all??

It's probably for the best that the basement of the terminal is left vacant for the next decade or so while a better, faster, cheaper, more efficient form of high speed transit is invented, such as Elon Musk's hyperloop, which can then operate out of the terminal.

http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2015/01/15/elon-musk-hyperloop-test-track-may-be-built-in-texas/

http://www.livescience.com/50936-hyperloop-test-track-california.html

Every word wrong and every word ridiculous.

[mt_climber13]

Every word wrong and every word ridiculous.

Why?

If traveling from LA-> SF, which I'm sure is the measurement since this is a forum about the SF terminal, It will be very slow for world HSR standards. The top speed at 200 mph and will be slowed down when in metropolitan areas to 125 mph to as slow as 90 mph. There are trains in China that top out at 300 mph.

It has too many stops. The routes are distant because of the geology of the coastal mountain ranges. It is exhibit A of how this state/ country has turned into a bloated, wasteful, inefficient, rusted cog.

Use the money to build and implement urban rail systems and with the money left over, fund the hyperloop for longer distances.

[Busy Bee]

It will be very slow for world HSR standards.

No. The design speed will be 250. The planned operating top speed will range from 200-220. These speeds will be among the fastest in the world. Faster than all operating HSR in Europe. China is the only current operator AFAIK of regularly scheduled 200+ mph HSR. Shinkansen may be close. CHSR will not be "slow for world HSR standards." You seem to not know what you are talking about.

The top speed at 200 mph and will be slowed down when in metropolitan areas to 125 mph to as slow as 90 mph.

As does every HSR system on the planet. I'm not sure how this is seen by you as unique in the proposed CHSR system. The brief slowing of non-stop trains will make of little difference in overall trip time.

There are trains in China that top out at 300 mph.

I assume you are referring to the Shanghai Airport express maglev. You must because that is the only thing that goes 300mph in China unless its flying in the sky. The airport maglev is a totally different technology, is relatively short and is completely isolated from the rest of the HSR system. It is not part of the larger system, a system China, with an infrastructure investment exponentially larger than the US (a choice one makes), chose to be traditionally steel/steel 200mph+ HSR even though clearly a higher top speed is obtainable with maglev. How is the California HSR plan any different? Thus the maglev example is a bad one and a disingenuous one.


It has too many stops. The routes are distant because of the geology of the coastal mountain ranges. It is exhibit A of how this state/ country has turned into a bloated, wasteful, inefficient, rusted cog.

It makes no sense to invest 65 billion dollars and bypass multiple metropolitan areas in the Central Valley. None. The goal should and is more than just shuttling people between the cosmo of the north to the cosmo of the south. The geology of the coastal mountain ranges has literally nothing to do with the routing with the system with the exception of the questionable decision of choosing Palmdale to enter and exit the LA basin. As for the criticism of the state/country, you simultaneously sound like a conservative crank and dreamy liberal. Muy confusing. Also not really sure what it has to do when you seem to be stating that building a world class HSR system is dumb and bad, but replacing it with a vomit slide tube in the ground that services a couple thousand rich folks a day between the cosmo of the north and the cosmo of the south is a great and worthy thing that we should be willing to wait 20-30-50 years for instead. Well never really because the technology is ridiculous, impractical, unproven and would probably be so expensive its not even worth discussing. I will give Musk credit though for thinking outside of the box, but that's where my admiration ends.


Use the money to build and implement urban rail systems and with the money left over, fund the hyperloop for longer distances.

I'm all for building and implementing urban rail systems. But with the few million left over from the tight budgeting of important urban rail projects, I think the closest you'd come to funding a "hyperloop" would be a slick scale model. Also, see above. With the money left over... that's a good one.

[mt_climber13]

Also not really sure what it has to do when you seem to be stating that building a world class HSR system is dumb and bad, but replacing it with a vomit slide tube in the ground that services a couple thousand rich folks a day between the cosmo of the north and the cosmo of the south is a great and worthy thing that we should be willing to wait 20-30-50 years for instead. Well never really because the technology is ridiculous, impractical, unproven and would probably be so expensive its not even worth discussing. I will give Musk credit though for thinking outside of the box, but that's where my admiration ends.


Wow, who's the crank here :haha:

Yes, let's keep the horse and buggy technology from generations ago. While we're at it, let's continue on the path of "clean coal" and oil and the combustible engine, because new technology has no place in preserving my old fashioned view of things. New is scary to me!


Anyway, it will be fun to see what ends up happening with all of this. I predict that HSR in its current form will be replaced with something evolutionary than its current form or perhaps replaced with an entirely different new technology altogether (like a vomit tube :jester: )

And by that time autonomous vehicle technology will be so advanced that trains will probably be obsolete anyway. I predict widening of I-5 and speed limits increased to 100 mph or more with automated buses and cars.

[Busy Bee]

^Wow. You've got some learnin to do. A modern HSR train is "horse and buggy/coal/old timey" huh? I guess all those other countries building them are jist really dumb and can't see the wisdom of waiting for some unnamed unidentifiable future technology, or better yet, and ironically your advice of a literal four wheeled computer driven sans horse buggy hotrod. That will of course require more money than rail system build-out to fund its absurdly inefficient and maintenance heavy infrastructure. Welcome to the future?

[mt_climber13]

The first high speed train was built ½ century ago (and the first train over two centuries ago). By the time it's built in California it will be almost a century old technology. Yeah, I'd say, that's pretty antiquated, especially considering the rapid rate of the growth of technology we are now entering. But this is all up to much bigger players than you or me.


That will of course require more money than rail system build-out to fund its absurdly inefficient and maintenance heavy infrastructure.

Proof? The cost estimate is only $7 billion for a $20 ride from SF to LA. (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050815/elon-musks-hyperloop-economically-feasible.asp) (Queue the "there will be cost overruns!" from somebody defending CA HSR :haha::haha: ) I guess your claim above that it is just for the "rich" (while HSR tickets are expected to cost exponentially more) is more hyperbole from somebody claiming to be so full of "truth." Face it- you're a bleeding heart HSR cheerleader with no grounding.

[Busy Bee]

I love how you are quoting a cost estimate for a technology with no proof of actual functionality attached to a proposal which is dubious at best. And I'm the "full of truth bleeding heart with no grounding"? O-K

As for the autonomous vehicle love that I can feel radiating off of you through the interweb, it's interesting how much pleasure you seem to get deriding railroads as antiquated seemingly without a shred of awareness that you are pushing high tech computer driven versions of a transport form actually older than the train. Fitted and furnished carriage, four wheels with sacrificial outer belt, suspension for comfort, steering stick, high torque propulsion system, fuel (oats, diesel, gas, electric...). Hmm, sounds familiar. That's funny.

The problem with always being "pregnant with the future" is that you never have anything practical and useful to show for the present.

[mt_climber13]

Autonomous cars can use pre- existing infrastructure and don't require $60- 70 billion (and counting) of new infrastructure to build out. And many things can come of it, such as hovering vehicles, that use the aforementioned infrastructure. With a train, you're stuck with the technology. To upgrade to something else, the track must be changed as well. Vehicles can be invented which hover over asphalt- and they probably will if the problem of civilian drivers operating them is eliminated. I actually love the idea of high speed trains, but California has mucked this up so badly that I regret having voted for it and if I knew it would turn out this way I would never have. Which makes me wonder- are you even a California citizen? If not, your opinions really don't matter.

But the topic is the Transbay Terminal, which is right now a bus station (soon to be automated buses), and within a couple decades a Caltrain station, and, hopefully, hyperloop terminus :tup:

[Busy Bee]

...but California has mucked this up so badly that I regret having voted for it...

I've been following the project since day one. Big projects are hard. Especially big projects that are continually under assault and sabotage for political purposes. Considering the circumstances, I think the authority is handling things quite well. Things are being built. And will continue to. And all the wet dream talk of evacuated tubes is not going to amount to a hill of beans.

hovering vehicles

This is where I leave you. Have fun on Tatooine.

[mt_climber13]

I will send you a postcard from the future

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1445056/jake-lloyd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/yf8HKMg.png

[pseudolus]

I'll side with Busy Bee. Shall we take a poll?

[viewguysf]

I'll side with Busy Bee. Shall we take a poll?

Busy Bee is right for me. While I agree we should never stop looking forward, our country has not been the most adept with public infrastructure for quite some time. Interstate 5, Highway 99, and other transit corridors/freeways can't continue to be ever expanded; neither can airports. It make sense to add rail and to do it as quickly as possible. We are way behind other countries with HSR, a number of which I have experienced.

[Pedestrian]

I'll side with Busy Bee. Shall we take a poll?

Me too.

[hammersklavier]

Busy Bee is in the right of it.

From an efficiency standpoint -- whether it's moving cargoes across a continent or whisking passengers between nearby urban centers, there is no more efficient overland technology than rail. Many have tried alternatives, and all of them have failed either from pure physics problems or from financing issues.

[CharlesCO]

Yeah I agree. If we're going to dismiss rail as "old technology" because it has been around for a while, as well as the same with HSR because it's been around for half a century, then we might as well do the same with commercial jet-powered aircraft. I agree that it's important to move technology forward, but I would be very skeptical of any radically new and unproven idea such as the Hyperloop until they actually get it up and running and prove it's a sustainable, efficient system. Right now, it doesn't seem all too different from the 1960s era forecasts that PRT would sweep the world.

[Busy Bee]

Aww shucks, thanks people. That fella got me a little hot under the collar.

[Folks3000]

The first high speed train was built ½ century ago (and the first train over two centuries ago). By the time it's built in California it will be almost a century old technology. Yeah, I'd say, that's pretty antiquated, especially considering the rapid rate of the growth of technology we are now entering. But this is all up to much bigger players than you or me.




Proof? The cost estimate is only $7 billion for a $20 ride from SF to LA. (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050815/elon-musks-hyperloop-economically-feasible.asp) (Queue the "there will be cost overruns!" from somebody defending CA HSR :haha::haha: ) I guess your claim above that it is just for the "rich" (while HSR tickets are expected to cost exponentially more) is more hyperbole from somebody claiming to be so full of "truth." Face it- you're a bleeding heart HSR cheerleader with no grounding.

You really think you're going to build... a pneumatically sealed tube... on pylons... that goes over mountain ranges... and somehow that's going to only cost $7 billion!!!?? I know everyone loves Elon, but that price estimate is astronomically low, anyone with even an inkling of civil engineering experience would tell you that. Also, if you looked at the plans, the hyperloop (as proposed) wouldn't even connect city center to city center (if you're going to drop me off in Union City or something I might as well just drive). Furthermore, the capacity of the hyperloop as it's proposed is pretty low (and the technology makes having more than one capsule moving at a time fairly infeasible), thus making the $20 ticket price also laughably understated. Just do the math, it would never pan out to be that low! You're right, HSR is a bit slower than the (non-existent) hyperloop, but you make up for it in massive volume, and the fact that it connects tons of points in between (not just two points). Furthermore, each station being built for HSR has four tracks to let express trains pass, so the number of stops isn't really a factor (the operator will choose the service pattern that maximizes revenue).

As far as autonomous vehicles... the whole idea that somehow they'll be no traffic congestion because every car will have 8 people and travel 2 inches from the car in front of it is pretty dubious assumptions. They'll change things, but I think people are a little naive in assuming everything will be hunky dory once cars and buses drive themselves. I've never seen a bus that can do 220 mph yet, and I wouldn't hang my hat on widening freeways through urban areas and mountainous terrain in California anytime soon either.

All in all, I find the supposition that we shouldn't build HSR to be lacking in any amount of careful thinking, just knee-jerk technological sensationalism.

[phoenixboi08]

*I'd also submit that attacking Transbay as being "just a bus station" requires no small amount of conceit... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3458202/Heathrow-s-biggest-secret-Inside-Terminal-5-s-deserted-underground-railway-station.html).

Are we really to expect that all infrastructure be developed concurrently, and if it doesn't that it's somehow a failure?

In reality, staging projects makes perfect sense and, in any case, even were the DTX built along with the terminal, it'd still sit empty until the CalTrain electrification was completed.

CalTrain will reach the terminal when it gets there...the point is that it will. There's nothing inherently flawed with operating the facility [as a bus terminal] in the interim. Much better than having delayed it or leaving it unoccupied/unused.

[iamfishhead]

*I'd also submit that attacking Transbay as being "just a bus station" requires no small amount of conceit... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3458202/Heathrow-s-biggest-secret-Inside-Terminal-5-s-deserted-underground-railway-station.html).

Are we really to expect that all infrastructure be developed concurrently, and if it doesn't that it's somehow a failure?

In reality, staging projects makes perfect sense and, in any case, even were the DTX built along with the terminal, it'd still sit empty until the CalTrain electrification was completed.

CalTrain will reach the terminal when it gets there...the point is that it will. There's nothing inherently flawed with operating the facility [as a bus terminal] in the interim. Much better than having delayed it or leaving it unoccupied/unused.

:yeahthat:

Coming from an engineering background, it's pretty much impossible to get even moderately sized things done on something that is being used if you don't stage them. Of course I've never worked on a project of this scale, but I find it hard to imagine that this is any different. It's just better to spread out the risk and price-tag while getting some of the benefits now and some of them later. This is doubly true when you have lots of moving parts to consider.

[timbad]

in this recent John King piece (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/New-image-for-a-slice-of-SF-The-East-Cut-11186840.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=4f41760489), he mentions, while discussing that neighborhood residents are trying to rebrand the area 'The East Cut', that

...the transit center-to-be, which should open next spring as a travel hub and neighborhood marker topped by a 5.4-acre park. That space will be maintained by the community benefits district, with park guides wearing outfits emblazoned with the angular E

I at least needed a reminder that there was any specific plan to maintain the park; this makes me feel better.

[Pedestrian]

^^Given the park is on top of, and is essentially the "green roof" of a city-owned bus station, forcing adjacent businesses to safeguard and maintain it via a "community benefits district" sure seems to me like an abrogation of city responsibility. What do we actually pay taxes for anyway?

As for "East Cut", does anybody know where this came from (the article doesn't say)? Doesn't sound terribly attractive to me but might be OK if there's history behind it.

[pseudolus]

As for "East Cut", does anybody know where this came from (the article doesn't say)? Doesn't sound terribly attractive to me but might be OK if there's history behind it.

The King article said it referred to the cutting of 2nd street through a hill that once existed.

I prefer to think of the original cut as being the that cut of meat known as the Tenderloin and, hence, this new area is the East Tenderloin.

[viewguysf]

^^Given the park is on top of, and is essentially the "green roof" of a city-owned bus station, forcing adjacent businesses to safeguard and maintain it via a "community benefits district" sure seems to me like an abrogation of city responsibility. What do we actually pay taxes for anyway?

As for "East Cut", does anybody know where this came from (the article doesn't say)? Doesn't sound terribly attractive to me but might be OK if there's history behind it.

There are numerous successful BIDs in San Francisco that have made a positive difference. I was once involved with one from the business ownership side and we supported increasing our property tax for it. The "abrogation of city responsibility" and "What do we pay taxes for?" are tired, worn out responses, now several decades old, from the days of the first BID here. We weren't the first city to do them either. Look into them and see why.

I also think the name East Cut is very unattractive and wouldn't want or use it if I lived down there. pseudolus nailed it with both of his statements.

[Pedestrian]

There are numerous successful BIDs in San Francisco that have made a positive difference. I was once involved with one from the business ownership side and we supported increasing our property tax for it. The "abrogation of city responsibility" and "What do we pay taxes for?" are tired, worn out responses, now several decades old, from the days of the first BID here. We weren't the first city to do them either. Look into them and see why.

I also think the name East Cut is very unattractive and wouldn't want or use it if I lived down there. pseudolus nailed it with both of his statements.

Sure there are successful BIDs, mainly in retail neighborhoods like Union Square where businesses want maximum atttactiveness for customers, and they keep sidewalks and streets clean and give directions to tourists in public. That's nothing like taking over security and other functions INSIDE a publicly-owned building (the roof is part of the building).

Actually, the city tried to talk the residents of my neighborhood into a BID because they wanted it kept cleaner and safer than they were willing to pay for and we voted a resounding, "No." But even here they were talking about the usual streets and sidewalks issues, not the green roof of a city building.

Because BIDs are capable of improving neighborhoods doesn't make them fair or an appropriate response in every situation nor does it address the issue of why local government isn't doing the job with tax dollars.

[Pedestrian]

I'm afraid this is over the top but what do the rest of you think?

Fast and cheap: Getting Caltrain to Transbay Terminal … this year
By Stanford M. Horn on June 4, 2017 1:00 am

It needn’t take a $2.5 billion tunnel construction project dragging out more than seven years to get Caltrain extended to the new Transbay Terminal. That goal could be achieved in 99 percent less time, at 99 percent less budget. In fact, the project is so simple that it shouldn’t take more than a few weeks or months to build, involving no new structures taller than a cantaloupe or excavations deeper than a watermelon . . . .

The simple plan: Build a track less than 100 feet long at Sixth and King streets connecting existing Caltrain tracks with existing Muni tracks. Run nonstop Caltrain — blended with existing Muni service — on the N-line and soon-to-be-vacated T-line on the private right-of-way tracks along The Embarcadero, past AT&T Park to Howard Street. Signals would always show green for trains. Build three-tenths of a mile of new track along wide, level, uncomplicated Howard, terminating at Beale Street, about a half-minute walk from Transbay’s Beale Street sidewalk entrance. The transfer-rich Embarcadero BART-Muni station is an additional three-minute walk. Caltrain would turn off The Embarcadero’s Muni tracks at Howard for a safe-and-sane 10-mph, two-minute ride to Beale. They would terminate at street level, not in the future train box under the terminal.

Trains along city streets are part of history in almost all of America’s major cities. Even today, California’s eight largest cities have trains running on their streets . . . .

Under this plan, many of Caltrain’s 60,000 daily passengers would pass through the new terminal daily, giving it a life and its merchants revenue. Those who ride to Transbay would save $1,200 annually in daily Muni fares. And they would gain an hour of time daily. Some rush-hour trains would continue to terminate and start at Fourth and King, because the Howard and Beale option has limited space. But mid-day, evening and weekend service is so sparse that all trains could proceed to Transbay. Those periods are when the terminal could most an infusion of activity . . . .

Next step: The agencies funding the future tunnel should meet without delay and adopt a plan to fund the project and have trains running by the terminal’s opening day early next year. If there are issues — like height of Muni overhead wires, clearance of platform edges, optimum train lengths or signals — that’s the place to solve them. Funding — less than one percent of the permanent tunnel’s budget — is already in hand. This one is a no-brainer.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/fast-cheap-getting-caltrain-transbay-terminal-year/

[viewguysf]

I'm afraid this is over the top but what do the rest of you think?

:nerd: I think anything and everything should be studied, but this should not derail a long range plan of bringing trains into the train box, both Caltrain and HSR.

[viewguysf]

Because BIDs are capable of improving neighborhoods doesn't make them fair or an appropriate response in every situation nor does it address the issue of why local government isn't doing the job with tax dollars.

It's because this is a luxury we really can't afford if it's done and maintained well. Do you hear major businesses there complaining about it now? I'm certain Salesforce and others want this amenity for many reasons, as we all do. Why are you so concerned about it when that BID tax won't affect you? I, for one, am most thankful we don't live in a Libertarian or Republican dominated city. That doesn't mean I don't want our tax money and other revenue sources to be expended as efficiently and effectively as possible.

[Pedestrian]

It's because this is a luxury we really can't afford if it's done and maintained well. Do you hear major businesses there complaining about it now? I'm certain Salesforce and others want this amenity for many reasons, as we all do. Why are you so concerned about it when that BID tax won't affect you? I, for one, am most thankful we don't live in a Libertarian or Republican dominated city. That doesn't mean I don't want our tax money and other revenue sources to be expended as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I'm concerned about it because more and more the city is trying to do this everywhere: Tax people (property tax) and then try to tax them again for what the first tax should be covering. I already said they actually did try to do it to me but to my surprise, my neighbors didn't go for it. But I expect them to try again . . . and again.

I have mixed feelings about this case. I do think it's more egregious and precedent-breaking to seek private funds to maintain any portion of a city-owned building includng the roof but, on the other hand, the owners of the 3 structures that will have direct access to the rooftop garden do have plenty to lose if it becomes a dangerous, dirty, derelict-infested place that scares off people. Because of that, assuming they are given a vote on the BID idea which I believe they have to be, I believe they'll vote for it. I just think it's tragic a city as rich as San Francisco with a budget bigger than some states, can't keep a place like the TransBay clean and safe with its regular revenue stream and I attribute that to a whole roster of waste that this isn't the place to catalogue.

[patriotizzy]

I'll add to the poll. Totally on Busy Bee's side. Mt climber13 sounds so arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

[timbad]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4209/35191433026_862654f69c_b.jpg

[timbad]

no more funky sculpture (https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/06/08/city-of-sf-cancels-multimillion-dollar-transbay-terminal-art-project/)

[Pedestrian]

^^I call that dodging a bullet.

[fimiak]

Transbay Transit Center: Everything you need to know about it

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/6/21/15822390/transbay-transit-center-san-francisco-sf


Good article with many awesome pictures.

[minesweeper]

Probably worth mentioning this update on DTX: There are three options under consideration (http://sf.streetsblog.org/2017/06/16/update-on-plans-to-get-trains-into-transbay/) on getting Caltrain into the transit center:


Maintaining the existing Caltrain alignment to Fourth and King (original DTX plan)
Shifting part of Caltrain's alignment under Pennsylvania Avenue
Tunneling under Third Street out through Mission Bay.

If they select either of the last 2, they probably have to do another environmental report on the new alignment. Supposedly they will settle on an alignment by the end of 2017.

It's still not clear where funding will come from. Some HSR money will be used for it. It seems like this is still years away from starting even if funding is found.

[fimiak]

Salesforce, a software company with its headquarters and 6,600 employees in the Bay Area, has agreed to a 25-year, $110 million sponsorship of the 2½-block-long facility set to open next spring at Fremont and Mission streets. The deal includes naming rights, which means that the complex would be known as the Salesforce Transit Center.

Similarly, the 5.4-acre rooftop open space will become Salesforce Park if the board of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority approves the contract Thursday at its monthly meeting.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Salesforce-buys-naming-rights-to-Transbay-Transit-11274011.php


Salesforce Transit Center & Salesforce Park.

[tech12]

lol

I know it's just a name, but what's wrong with calling it what it was already named? A name that everyone knows it by, which is aso a name that rolls nicely off the tongue: Transbay Terminal.

Salesforce transit center? It's one thing to name a tower after the company that leases the most space in it...but a public transit station and park? :rolleyes:

Is embarcadero station eventually going to be named Twitter station, after they agree to pay for an art installation or something? Union Square will become Facebook Square? Or maybe City Hall will become Airbnb Hall, after they pay for a new lighting system. Etc, etc...

At least when they did it to SF General it was person's name instead of a company name.

[Busy Bee]

Sorry SF but this is sickening.

And if you don't find this kind of monetizing of public assets disturbing you haven't thought about it long enough. The willingness to do this says something about our culture and society and it's associated social contract, and it doesn't say anything positive.

[Pedestrian]

^^Sickening?

On the contrary, I think it's wonderful and something I have expected since a year or two ago when it was announced the Transbay Board may not have enough money to build out the park. They seem to have come up with the money to build it but I believe it would be a near certainty that maintenance and security would slip without the participation of a private entity that has reason to care that the place stays clean and safe.

Benioff (Salesforce CEO) has now created what he says his employees wanted--a "campus" in the city center--and the transit terminal, its park and the plaza next to Salesforce's eponymous tower are all part of it. The company has every reason to want to keep it all shining and working properly (and to keep the homeless from despoiling it all) and I believe they will.

[mt_climber13]

Tacky! And a horrible precedent. Actually.. that precedent started when Candlestick park was renamed "3COM"



At least when they did it to SF General it was person's name instead of a company name.

But corporations are people now don't ya know?

It seems as if SF is turning into one big corporate conglomerate. I checked out the pride parade a few weeks ago and was very disappointed. The last one I attended was about a decade ago and seemed much more bombastic/ parade like with really cool floats. This year's parade was just a marching of corporate logos one after the other: Wells Fargo, PG&E, AT&T, Verizon. And they weren't even on floats, it was mainly just a bunch of employees wearing shirts of their corporate overlord logos and waving (or at the most riding in a BMW). Even the Apple representation was just a bunch of dorks in different colored Apple logo shirts waving to the crowds. You're telling me that the richest corporation in the world couldn't afford to put together an elaborate float??

My point being: SF is losing some of its edge and turning into a big corporate logo.

[pseudolus]

The last one I attended was about a decade ago and seemed much more bombastic/ parade like with really cool floats.

First time I ever heard of Android was seeing the Google contingent at the parade all wearing their Android t-shirts...about a decade ago? The parade's been corporatized for a long time. You could probably find complaints about this from the 1980s.

[mt_climber13]

First time I ever heard of Android was seeing the Google contingent at the parade all wearing their Android t-shirts...about a decade ago? The parade's been corporatized for a long time. You could probably find complaints about this from the 1980s.

No doubt it had definitely sold it's soul to Budweiser and Shmirnoff et. al. long ago. Just seemed more bland than the last time I was there.

[Pedestrian]

Tacky! And a horrible precedent. Actually.. that precedent started when Candlestick park was renamed "3COM"


Do you like the job the city Park and Rec Dept. does? Would you like homeless tents in the park on the Transbay? Do you want the "gondolas" getting you to the park to be broken as often as BART's escalators? Looking forward to the expensive greenery all dying like that at City Hall and the State PUC Building? Then you don't want it called "Salesforce Park". You want the city to pick a name like "Willie L. Brown Park" or maybe "Barbara Boxer Park". Actually, the most appropriate name might be "Chris Daly Park" since he was on the Transbay Board when the terinal was approved. It has a ring to it development fans ought to love.

[viewguysf]

^^Sickening?

On the contrary, I think it's wonderful and something I have expected since a year or two ago when it was announced the Transbay Board may not have enough money to build out the park. They seem to have come up with the money to build it but I believe it would be a near certainty that maintenance and security would slip without the participation of a private entity that has reason to care that the place stays clean and safe.

Benioff (Salesforce CEO) has now created what he says his employees wanted--a "campus" in the city center--and the transit terminal, its park and the plaza next to Salesforce's eponymous tower are all part of it. The company has every reason to want to keep it all shining and working properly (and to keep the homeless from despoiling it all) and I believe they will.

I agree with you!

[Busy Bee]

I don't give a shit what the park is named, that's not the part that bothers me. The naming of the station itself is beyond what I'm comfortable with. American cities have for years floated (or threatened) the idea of naming rights to public transit stations in an effort to plug budgets from chronic underfunding. They never happened... until now. This is a new precedent. If they wanted to say Transbay Transit Center or Transbay Terminal with a branding add-on like "brought to you by Salesforce"... fine, whatever. I wouldn't like it but whatever. This is different. This is surrendering it's entire identity as a public facility for the public good to a private brand. That is not the same thing as a ball field or arena, this is public infrastructure. Ask yourself how it would strike you if there was a national story titled "New York City's Grand Central Terminal being renamed 'Goldman Sachs Station' in 200 million dollar deal". Would that make you feel nauseous? And if so, why not here?

[Pedestrian]

^^Without the profanity, I will say the important thing is having adequate dollars and real concern for these assets. There is little evidence the city government will make the dollars available or that it will apply the attention and concern that Salesforce will. I believe the result of city control will be neglect and deterioration. What it boils down to is whether you think Mark Benioff or the BOS will be the better steward of the asset. Your faith in the BOS is touching but wrong.

While some cities have actually sold assets, this is not a sale which I would oppose. This is "naming rights" which you say you don't care about and "sponsorship" which means they will have a stake in the things that matter: husbandry* of the park and terminal. The Transbay Transit District will continue to own them.

*management and conservation of resources

[pseudolus]

Just a historical note, all IIRC.

1. When Muni was building new raised platforms for the M line, one station was going to be called Stonestown because it was adjacent to the mall. This was deemed not acceptable and it's now named Winston Drive.

2. Similarly, when BART was extended to the airport, one of the new stations was going to be called Tanforan, after that mall. That was not considered acceptable and it's now San Bruno station.

These malls are the main landmarks/identifiers for their neighborhoods.

Big as it is, "Salesforce" is not how people identify downtown San Francisco. Are the route maps going to say "Salesforce". Are the bus destination signs going to say "Salesforce". Will the station agents and drivers refuse to understand what you're talking about unless you ask about "Salesforce Station", the same way Starbucks forces you to say stupid stuff like "venti"?

[Busy Bee]

^herehere

[cv94117]

While we're talking about naming, can we rename this thread? This has bugged me for years - the thread is about the Transbay Terminal, or the Transbay Transit Center (hopefully not the Salesforce Center, but that's not my point). The Transbay Transit Center Redevelopment Plan, as this thread has been called for years, is something different - it is everything around the Transit Center, by not the Transit Center itself. So this thread should be called the "Transbay Transit Center." Period. (Although frankly, talk of Salesforce notwithstanding, please let's go back to the Transbay Terminal).

[Pedestrian]

Are the bus destination signs going to say "Salesforce". Will the station agents and drivers refuse to understand what you're talking about unless you ask about "Salesforce Station", the same way Starbucks forces you to say stupid stuff like "venti"?

That is not clear. Nobody here can answer that question at this point. I'm sure whatever the signs say, nobody riding will have any doubt where they are.

[Pedestrian]

Socketsite brings us more details on the terminal renaming and as far as I'm concerned it's more good news is some respects:

Salesforce Secures Rights to Transbay Transit Center and Park
July 10, 2017

While the 25-year, $110 million deal doesn’t exclude other companies from sponsoring events atop the future Salesforce Transit Center, the agreement does provide Salesforce the ongoing option to reserve the future Salesforce Park for its exclusive use during its annual Dreamforce convention.

The agreement also limits the operating hours of the rooftop park for public use, to no earlier than 6:00 am and no later than 8:00 pm from November through April, with the closing time extended to 9:00 pm from May through October.

The rooftop park hours will not apply to the rooftop Restaurant and Café, however, “or to events in the park” (see paragraph above). And the park hours could be modified with Salesforce’s consent.

If approved by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the naming rights agreement will take effect as of Thursday, July 13. And in addition to the 25-year term, the agreement includes an option for a 5-year extension as well.

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Salesforce-Transit-Center-Rendering.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/07/salesforce-secures-rights-to-transbay-transit-center-and-park.html

Closing the park from 8 or 9 PM to 6 AM means no homeless camping there and unlike the city, Saleforce's private security will enforce it.

[cv94117]

Socketsite brings us more details on the terminal renaming and as far as I'm concerned it's more good news is some respects:


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/07/salesforce-secures-rights-to-transbay-transit-center-and-park.html

Closing the park from 8 or 9 PM to 6 AM means no homeless camping there and unlike the city, Saleforce's private security will enforce it.

Gross.

[ozone]

^^^^ because you think homeless camps would be a good addition to the park? I'm 100% all for this. Maintenance and security is expensive and governmental agencies in SF do not have a great track record in this department. Look at the Embarcadero Center. It's a privately owned, maintained and secured but is basically public space. Or Grand Central Terminal in NYC. It's not owned by the MTA but a private company. And if it's the name you don't like, wait long enough and it'll likely change.

[TowerDude]

Salesforce is a horrible name for 1: A Tower 2: A Public Transit facility and 3: A Company.

San Francisco should be ashamed of themselves for these horrible deals.

[Busy Bee]

Puke.