SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[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]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

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. (Queue the "there will be cost overruns!" from somebody defending CA HSR ) 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....

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]

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08

*I'd also submit that attacking Transbay as being "just a bus station" requires no small amount of conceit....

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.

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, 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]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

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...terminal-year/

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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

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]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

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]

[timbad]

no more funky sculpture

[Pedestrian]

^^I call that dodging a bullet.

[fimiak]

Transbay Transit Center: Everything you need to know about it

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/6/21/1582...n-francisco-sf


Good article with many awesome pictures.

[minesweeper]

Probably worth mentioning this update on DTX: There are three options under consideration 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.