SAN FRANCISCO | Central Subway

[Yankee]

MUNI just launched a new redesigned Central Subway site that has more diagrams, videos and info. It's pretty cool, check it out here:

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mcsp/cspover.htm

Also, I thought this would be a good place to discuss the Central Subway as well as all other possible MUNI extension projects. In my honest opinion before spending billions of dollars on this 4th & King to Chinatown connection, which I'm not sure is really needed, they should think about giving the northern half of the city some rail... Geary would be perfect and there's been talk about building a BRT line through there to which my response is boo - rail is rail.

[OhioGuy]

The Central Subway would be a little more exciting if there was more too it, such as extending it further along Columbus Ave and over to at least Van Ness. And of course, looking at a map, the Geary corridor really does stick out like a sore thumb with its lack of rail transit.

[BTinSF]

I find it pretty exciting as it is (but I'm nearly alone in that on SSP). SF lacks crosstown transit IMHO. The alternative to the subway, the 30 Stockton bus, is nightmare crowded. While I wish the subway went beyond Chinatown and feel fairly certain someday it will, the distance and usefulness of a line from South Beach to Chinatown is significant already. If, as has been proposed, half of the HSR trains terminate at 4th & King (because of an inadequate number of platforms at the TransBay Terminal), the subway will be even more important to carry people to trains from Union Square and the hotels in that area.

As for Geary, we are getting a Central Subway because there was strong support for it from the areas it will serve. Along Geary you have the opposite--the Geary merchants fight against mass transit because they (wrongly IMHO) think most of their customers drive to shop and transit would reduce parking and/or disrupt business or even haul people past their stores underground.

Most transit advocates are strongly in favor of better Geary service as a top priority--BRT being most likely in the near future--but as long as the merchants remain so hostile the politics for it aren't good.

[Gordo]

We've had this discussion plenty of times before, so I'm going to keep my post relatively short (compared to those other threads ). My problems with the Central Subway are:

1. Terrible connection to Market. If we're trying to build a comprehensive system where each piece feeds off of one another, the worst thing that we can do is screw up the connection of our most important trunk line (the Market St tunnel) and another of our most important routes.

2. Terrible scaling potential. The stations at Union Square and in Chinatown are FAAAAR too small if we ever plan to extend this thing to North Beach, Van Ness, or further, or if we start unloading HSR trains at 4th and King (they're about half the size of the Church or Castro stations). If we put huge limitations on capacity now, it's going to cost exponentially more to fix it in the future (think BART and the two track tube built in the late 60's/early 70's instead of the four track tube that was sold to voters years before). The Chinatown and Moscone stations also will only have one street entrance, severely restricting the capacity of people that can enter/exit the station.

3. Every study has shown that it will significantly increase Muni operating costs because it doesn't really "replace" any current service, it simply adds train service to a route that will still need to be heavily serviced by buses and trolleybuses. I wouldn't be opposed to this if there was some indication from the MTA that they would start implementing transit priority on the above ground T segment - and especially at 4th and King. Then, we'd at least have the potential of making this line a trunk line, with fast enough speed for transfers off of buses to be worth it (and thus drawing in increased ridership). As it is, the above ground T is slower than the bus it replaced, and the below ground portion will likely not be much faster if you take into account time to get to and from the train (keep in mind the Union Square station will be 10 stories under ground, as opposed to the Market St Muni/BART levels being two and three stories, respectively - Moscone is about six stories under ground and Chinatown will be about five stories under).

As far as Geary goes, of course it would make more sense to spend large amounts on Geary, but that doesn't mean that Stockton doesn't also need help. Unfortunately, this beast will manage to make overall service everywhere worse, because of the extreme increase in operational costs that it will demand.

There are two arguments often made that I don't really buy:

1. The "free" money argument - don't worry about a bad project in Chinatown because the money couldn't be used for other uses anyway. This is true for the majority of the amount being spent, however, local money still makes up more than a quarter billion dollars of the bill. That's more than the total expected local contribution to BOTH Van Ness BRT and Geary BRT. And again, the increase in operational costs (with no plan on where that money is going to come from - hint - it will come from degrading service on other lines, increasing fares, or increasing taxes in some way) is the real devil in the details of this project.

2. Chinatown merchants support this project while Geary merchants don't support projects on Geary. Again, this is true - but you have to look at the details. Geary has never had a proposal of a deep-bore subway with almost no surface construction. Chinatown has never had a proposal for an entirely surface proposal with extensive construction impacts. I don't agree with the Geary merchants, but I can certainly see some of their concern. If Chinatown was looking at having their streets torn up, I guarantee support wouldn't be there, and if Geary was looking at no surface impacts, I find it hard to believe that support would not be there.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by Gordo

1. Terrible connection to Market. If we're trying to build a comprehensive system where each piece feeds off of one another, the worst thing that we can do is screw up the connection of our most important trunk line (the Market St tunnel) and another of our most important routes.

Everyone says this, but no one bothers to explain how it's going to be a bad connection. It's going to be a "continuous shallow underground concourse connection" according to John Funghi, Project Manager for the Central Subway. I really would like to know what's wrong with it, if there is a problem with its design.

Originally Posted by Gordo

2. Terrible scaling potential. The stations at Union Square and in Chinatown are FAAAAR too small if we ever plan to extend this thing to North Beach, Van Ness, or further, or if we start unloading HSR trains at 4th and King (they're about half the size of the Church or Castro stations). If we put huge limitations on capacity now, it's going to cost exponentially more to fix it in the future (think BART and the two track tube built in the late 60's/early 70's instead of the four track tube that was sold to voters years before). The Chinatown and Moscone stations also will only have one street entrance, severely restricting the capacity of people that can enter/exit the station.

I totally agree. That's the dumbest thing that they're doing with this project. Living in NYC now, i see where their big investment in the subway brought them a long way.

Originally Posted by Gordo

As far as Geary goes, of course it would make more sense to spend large amounts on Geary, but that doesn't mean that Stockton doesn't also need help. Unfortunately, this beast will manage to make overall service everywhere worse, because of the extreme increase in operational costs that it will demand.

I've ranted about the Geary corridor plenty on all of the blogsphere and on SSP. The more i think about it, though, and the more proposals/ideas I hear regarding Geary's situation, the less I think that Muni should be the one putting a subway in under Geary. I think it should be BART.

Originally Posted by Gordo

There are two arguments often made that I don't really buy:

1. The "free" money argument - don't worry about a bad project in Chinatown because the money couldn't be used for other uses anyway. This is true for the majority of the amount being spent, however, local money still makes up more than a quarter billion dollars of the bill. That's more than the total expected local contribution to BOTH Van Ness BRT and Geary BRT. And again, the increase in operational costs (with no plan on where that money is going to come from - hint - it will come from degrading service on other lines, increasing fares, or increasing taxes in some way) is the real devil in the details of this project.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Gordo

2. Chinatown merchants support this project while Geary merchants don't support projects on Geary. Again, this is true - but you have to look at the details. Geary has never had a proposal of a deep-bore subway with almost no surface construction. Chinatown has never had a proposal for an entirely surface proposal with extensive construction impacts. I don't agree with the Geary merchants, but I can certainly see some of their concern. If Chinatown was looking at having their streets torn up, I guarantee support wouldn't be there, and if Geary was looking at no surface impacts, I find it hard to believe that support would not be there.

I really think there just needs to be either a generational shift or an incredible (more than already) burden on the current population before the politics will allow for a subway underneath under Geary. Part of the problem is the attitude of many San Franciscans that the status quo is just fine, particularly in the western part of the city where driving is not uncommon. Many of who live in the western part of the city don't even go downtown and therefore don't have to pay for the prohibitively expensive parking. Though they may have trouble finding parking from time to time in the many neighborhoods, they'll put up with driving in circles and putting money in the meter because they don't like taking the bus/train. They don't care about putting a subway underneath Geary or where ever so the politicians don't. To me, they're absolutely insane, but I think it's true.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by CityKid

Everyone says this, but no one bothers to explain how it's going to be a bad connection. It's going to be a "continuous shallow underground concourse connection" according to John Funghi, Project Manager for the Central Subway. I really would like to know what's wrong with it, if there is a problem with its design.

This is how it will work - get off your T train (100' below ground). Take escalator/elevator up eight/nine stories. Walk several several hundred feet to connection with Powell Station. Exit fare zone. Walk within Powell Station to fare entry point. Re-enter fare zone. Take escalator/stairs down one level to Muni level. Simulations have put this process at about four and half to five minutes - it's the equivalent of two to three blocks plus the up and down. That's a very poorly designed transfer, IMO. Exiting and entering fare zones without ever actually leaving the system? That's the best we can do?

How well it works will certainly depend on frequency and reliability of the T. Since all trains will deal with above ground unforeseen delays (unless Muni decides to run a Moscone - Chinatown shuttle, which would be bizarre), I'm not at all convinced about at least the reliability part (at least until the MTA decides to implement some sort of transit priority at least at the 4th and King intersection), and high frequency seems unlikely, unless Muni somehow finds a way to buy a bunch more trains (or diverts more from other lines).

I really think there just needs to be either a generational shift or an incredible (more than already) burden on the current population before the politics will allow for a subway underneath under Geary. Part of the problem is the attitude of many San Franciscans that the status quo is just fine, particularly in the western part of the city where driving is not uncommon. Many of who live in the western part of the city don't even go downtown and therefore don't have to pay for the prohibitively expensive parking. Though they may have trouble finding parking from time to time in the many neighborhoods, they'll put up with driving in circles and putting money in the meter because they don't like taking the bus/train. They don't care about putting a subway underneath Geary or where ever so the politicians don't. To me, they're absolutely insane, but I think it's true.

There's certainly some of that, sure. BART under Geary would be the best course, but we're never going to see that unless the feds start doling out billions and billions to improve transit. The structure of the BART system (where the two suburban counties effectively control the board) simply won't allow it. It will forever be a "future corridor." I'm fine with the BRT system, if we can actually get that.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by Gordo

This is how it will work - get off your T train (100' below ground). Take escalator/elevator up eight/nine stories. Walk several several hundred feet to connection with Powell Station. Exit fare zone. Walk within Powell Station to fare entry point. Re-enter fare zone. Take escalator/stairs down one level to Muni level. Simulations have put this process at about four and half to five minutes - it's the equivalent of two to three blocks plus the up and down. That's a very poorly designed transfer, IMO. Exiting and entering fare zones without ever actually leaving the system? That's the best we can do?

How well it works will certainly depend on frequency and reliability of the T. Since all trains will deal with above ground unforeseen delays (unless Muni decides to run a Moscone - Chinatown shuttle, which would be bizarre), I'm not at all convinced about at least the reliability part (at least until the MTA decides to implement some sort of transit priority at least at the 4th and King intersection), and high frequency seems unlikely, unless Muni somehow finds a way to buy a bunch more trains (or diverts more from other lines).



There's certainly some of that, sure. BART under Geary would be the best course, but we're never going to see that unless the feds start doling out billions and billions to improve transit. The structure of the BART system (where the two suburban counties effectively control the board) simply won't allow it. It will forever be a "future corridor." I'm fine with the BRT system, if we can actually get that.

I wish the Central Subway had been a shallow dig under Market St and Union Square. The Powell Street station mezzanine is actually deep enough to accomodate a central subway platform with a slight reconfiguration of the exits, but by the time I moved to SF and became aware of the issue, decisions had long been made. I suspect the deep bore was the price to pay to avoid merchant opposition. And since I probably won't ride it anyway - I live in a different part of town - I can be philosophical about it.

As regards BRT, which I will ride, I am very concerned with above ground unforseen delays in the non-BRT stretch of the route, plus the usual delays of passengers boarding without having prepaid and looking for change, and of the handicapped who need to be lifted on board and secured before the bus can move. Which is why my support for it is lukewarm.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

This is how it will work - get off your T train (100' below ground). Take escalator/elevator up eight/nine stories. Walk several several hundred feet to connection with Powell Station. Exit fare zone. Walk within Powell Station to fare entry point. Re-enter fare zone. Take escalator/stairs down one level to Muni level. Simulations have put this process at about four and half to five minutes

Just for the record, this is certainly no worse than some transfers in the New York subway system. I can't recall which station it is, but there was one where I kept descending into the earth until I expected to start seeing signs in some Asian language (I'm pretty sure it was in Midtown where there is a major hodge-podge of lines).

Speaking of the Chinatown station being "half the size of the Castro Station" reminds me once again that in all the years I've used the Castro Station, I can't ever remember boarding a train anywhere but right at the bottom of the escalator or within 50 ft of that. My impression has always been that all the Market St. Muni Metro stations are much larger than they need to be but especially Church and Castro (they seem to be long enough to accommodate an 8-car BART train). I seem to recall Chicago subway stations that are much more claustrophobic even if the platforms may be as long or longer.

Nequidnimis is right that "trench and cover" construction producing a shallow tunnel was out because of the disruption it would cause. The deep bore using boring equipment is being billed as a relatively painless method of construction and it probably will be.

[nequidnimis]

"Trench and cover" has become "cover and trench" nowadays. You pour a slab, and then excavate underneath. That minimizes the disruption to a few days - or even a few weekends. See "top down" method in the following Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel

[KVNBKLYN]

Originally Posted by Gordo

This is how it will work - get off your T train (100' below ground). Take escalator/elevator up eight/nine stories. Walk several several hundred feet to connection with Powell Station. Exit fare zone. Walk within Powell Station to fare entry point. Re-enter fare zone. Take escalator/stairs down one level to Muni level. Simulations have put this process at about four and half to five minutes - it's the equivalent of two to three blocks plus the up and down. That's a very poorly designed transfer, IMO. Exiting and entering fare zones without ever actually leaving the system? That's the best we can do?

If I remember correctly, outbound trains stop at the end of the platform closest to Powell and inbound trains stop near the center of the platform. Couldn't the transfer distance be shortened by rejiggering the system to make both outbound and inbound trains stop closer to Stockton and the connection to the central subway? I also seem to remember from my years living in SF that the Stockton end of the current Muni platform is closed off and not even finished - couldn't that be converted to space for the current trains to stop making the connection even shorter?

[KVNBKLYN]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Just for the record, this is certainly no worse than some transfers in the New York subway system. I can't recall which station it is, but there was one where I kept descending into the earth until I expected to start seeing signs in some Asian language (I'm pretty sure it was in Midtown where there is a major hodge-podge of lines).

Actually, most of the NYC subway is built just below the street partially because this eliminated the need for costly escalators and elevators and partially because of the particular geology of Mahattan. However, there are some pretty deep stations in Midtown. You're probably thinking of the Lexington-51st transfer between the close-to-the-surface 6 train and the very deep E and V trains. It's worth mentioning that the transfer is designed like it is because the line that carries the E and V trains was built several decades after the line carrying the 6 and thus had to be deep to pass under the existing tunnels, much like the SF central subway.

[CityKid]

Was just in DC and had to descend into the depths to ride the metro there and survived. I think Union Square will be okay with respect to the deep tunnel provided they have adequate escalators. The fact that they have to use existing fare gates for the Market St subway is stupid, though.

[dl3000]

The Market St. connection is so hard to configure when you think about it. You can't approach the platform from the side because the Muni tunnels are there, and you can't approach the platform from the bottom between the tunnels because the BART platform is in the way. All you're left with is the existing Mezzanine level, which by the way somehow has to get around the San Francisco Center areas. They could get around all that by making an escalator well in the BART platform that simply bypasses it and goes up to MUNI, but Powell is so busy I don't know if the BART platform can give up that kind of space. Maybe if the escalators went up between the tunnels beyond the platform and then there was a walkway to the platform itself. I know this is all probably quite confusing as I'm describing 3D underground space.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by KVNBKLYN

You're probably thinking of the Lexington-51st transfer between the close-to-the-surface 6 train and the very deep E and V trains. It's worth mentioning that the transfer is designed like it is because the line that carries the E and V trains was built several decades after the line carrying the 6 and thus had to be deep to pass under the existing tunnels, much like the SF central subway.

I believe that is the station I'm thinking about and, yes, the reason it's deep sounds just the same.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by dl3000

The Market St. connection is so hard to configure when you think about it. You can't approach the platform from the side because the Muni tunnels are there, and you can't approach the platform from the bottom between the tunnels because the BART platform is in the way. All you're left with is the existing Mezzanine level, which by the way somehow has to get around the San Francisco Center areas. They could get around all that by making an escalator well in the BART platform that simply bypasses it and goes up to MUNI, but Powell is so busy I don't know if the BART platform can give up that kind of space. Maybe if the escalators went up between the tunnels beyond the platform and then there was a walkway to the platform itself. I know this is all probably quite confusing as I'm describing 3D underground space.

I thought about all that right after I talked about how stupid it was. I was thinking about editing my post but got lazy. It's true: how can they make it better considering what they have to work with? I think in the grand scheme of things, once they actually extend this line into North Beach (whenever that is), the weird transfer won't be such a big deal. Coming from Chinatown, it seems like an awful lot of work, but maybe coming from Van Ness or even Washington Square, it seems more manageable. Now, how do we make sure than we get a subway station in a neighborhood that doesn't even want to get a new library?

[Gordo]

You can't simply look at the connection and say "People deal with stuff like this other places," or something along the lines of those comments. You have to look at the demographics of the riders, the length of the trips, and the other available options to really see if a long connection will be used.

Most of the people commenting here are likely transit geeks of some level, far younger than the average rider whose final destination is Chinatown, and very unlikely to go to Chinatown on a daily basis, or even weekly basis. The CS will serve you fine. The CS will serve me fine. However, here are the major places that the vast majority of riders are coming from (and the way they're currently getting there):

Visitacion Valley - mostly coming by the 9x bus. The T connects Viz Valley and Chinatown, but the ride from end to end would be more than 15 minutes longer on average - expect people to continue using the single seat ride on the bus.

The Richmond - coming one of two ways - direct single seat ride on the 1, 2, or 4. The others are coming on the 5, 31, or 38 and transferring at street level to a 30 or 45 at Market.

The Muni Metro lines (Sunset and Ingleside mostly) - down Market to connect with a 30 or 45.

Tourists - Walking from the Union Square area to the Grant Street entrance to Chinatown (Grant is the tourist street, not Stockton) or finding some way to Chinatown from the Fisherman's Wharf area.

Anyone familiar with SF should immediately notice that the first three groups are all heavily Asian neighborhoods, and anyone who has ever ridden a 1, 30, 45, or 9x through Chinatown knows that the majority of folks getting off there are 40+ years old, many that simply aren't going to deal with a connection that makes them walk the equivalent of three blocks and go up and down nine stories for one exit point in Chinatown, when there's a surface connection that requires no walking and has several exit points in Chinatown. There's no rail bias for these daily users - they're going to pick the easiest way.

Also, talk of the North Beach extension is great and everything - but think of it this way - a North Beach extension is going to take at least another ten years after the opening of the Chinatown section, and the way it's proposed to be done now, the North Beach extension will be next in line for any extension of rail service in SF. Do we want almost all of our capital resources going into this corridor for the next 25 years? Is this where those resources are most needed?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Do we want almost all of our capital resources going into this corridor for the next 25 years? Is this where those resources are most needed?

As opposed to what?

In SF, if we start planning the Geary Subway line tomorrow, it will be 25 years before we finish fighting over it and are ready to start building anyway. So, yeah, in the meantime let's do the CS.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

As opposed to what?

In SF, if we start planning the Geary Subway line tomorrow, it will be 25 years before we finish fighting over it and are ready to start building anyway. So, yeah, in the meantime let's do the CS.

As opposed to incremental improvements to all lines, including those that use Stockton. The problem, as always, is mostly political. The obvious improvements (widened sidewalks, elimination of parking lanes, perhaps even banning private autos from certain streets and/or lanes) on heavily used corridors like Stockton would have potentially negative impacts for private autos, so they won't even be considered. The CS (at least in the minds of most) is the way that we have our cake and eat it too, regardless of the additional cost.

It's a problem that we now have everywhere in California, but especially in SF. We swung from not caring at all about existing users when building something - all the way to the other side where we look too much at existing users and not enough at what the potential could be. With the CS, a shallow tunnel that crossed Market at the mezzanine level of Powell is operationally superior in EVERY way. Not building it that way saves frustration of the years during construction, but causes problems for 100? 200? years after it's built. It also costs hundreds of millions more. Why wasn't it even considered? It would inconvenience current users for a few years, which is now politically impossible. If it's going to hurt businesses, take the $500 million in savings over a deep bore and dole that out to all of the businesses - at least then we'll see some operational savings for decades and decades.

[CityKid]

^^^ In all fairness, I don't think you can say, "The majority of Asians in their 40s aren't going to use this. The end." What does being Asian and in your 40s have to do with anything? Does that mean that they aren't going to hike up and down 10 stories? Even if they're just lazily standing on an escalator the whole time? Even if the escalator is quick and takes them to the surface seamlessly? What are you basing that on?

I agree with you that in a perfect world, we would build a shallow tunnel for the Central Subway. In a perfect world, we would have built a subway under Geary first. In a perfect world, we would have had longer platforms in the CS to accommodate the inevitably growing population and eventual connection to the Geary line. In a perfect world, the CS would AT LEAST extend to North Beach from the beginning. In a perfect world, a lot of things would be different. I don't see your point though in saying Asians in their 40s will not use this connection simply based on them being Asian and in their 40s.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by CityKid

^^^ In all fairness, I don't think you can say, "The majority of Asians in their 40s aren't going to use this. The end." What does being Asian and in your 40s have to do with anything?

I'm a 60 year old white guy who weighs about 3 times as much as the average Asian little old lady and I get elbowed and shoved out of the way by them every time I try to ride the 30 Stockton. Physically, "Asians in their 40's" are in darned good shape on average and fully capable of using the subway no matter its configuration if it gets them where they want to go. Who here really knows if they will opt for the hyper-crowded, standing room only 30 Stockton as opposed to a little climbing and walking to use the subway. Only time will tell.

But any discussion of using the money paying for most of the subway for other purposes is dreaming--its federal funds we wouldn't get for any other project that's realistic. The local share could be diverted--so we would get some minor adjustments to other routes and services if we are lucky. Sorry--I say take the federal money before they change their minds (or the Repubs take back the Speakership from Pelosi) and build the subway. Then start working on a Geary Subway so in another decade or two we can get some money to build it.