<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Central Subway: An Alternative Proposal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/</link>
	<description>A transit riders' association for San Francisco</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-726</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-726</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ziggy Says: Given how many passengers board in Chinatown and get off at Market, I feel there should be two or more dedicated Chinatown/Market st buses, that just circle between Chinatown and Market street all day long. This would alleviate much of the overcrowding on the 30-45 lines. 

Howard has an excellent idea. And Ziggy&#039;s proposed shuttle between Chinatown and Market seems like an obvious thing to do.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ziggy Says: Given how many passengers board in Chinatown and get off at Market, I feel there should be two or more dedicated Chinatown/Market st buses, that just circle between Chinatown and Market street all day long. This would alleviate much of the overcrowding on the 30-45 lines. </p>
<p>Howard has an excellent idea. And Ziggy&#8217;s proposed shuttle between Chinatown and Market seems like an obvious thing to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rescue Muni &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Central Subway&#8217;s Revised Route Approved by MTA</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-725</link>
		<dc:creator>Rescue Muni &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Central Subway&#8217;s Revised Route Approved by MTA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:57:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] The Examiner editorializes in favor of the project, while the Chronicle&#8217;s CW Nevius slams it. Meanwhile Rescue Muni has long taken the position that if the project is built, it needs to have the most direct route, and also it must be built to allow easy expansion to North Beach. (Our board member Howard Strassner has also proposed a non-subway alternative.) [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Examiner editorializes in favor of the project, while the Chronicle&#8217;s CW Nevius slams it. Meanwhile Rescue Muni has long taken the position that if the project is built, it needs to have the most direct route, and also it must be built to allow easy expansion to North Beach. (Our board member Howard Strassner has also proposed a non-subway alternative.) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Central Subway: Thinking Outside the Station Box &#171; Transbay Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Central Subway: Thinking Outside the Station Box &#171; Transbay Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] description here, but you can read more about the plan through articles posted this past summer on Rescue Muni and the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] description here, but you can read more about the plan through articles posted this past summer on Rescue Muni and the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-83</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another option is to sink the freeway ramps underground just for one block, with a big deck covering the tunnel with the streetcars going both ways.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another option is to sink the freeway ramps underground just for one block, with a big deck covering the tunnel with the streetcars going both ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: transitbuddie</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>transitbuddie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:19:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think elevated is a great idea, except for the fact that it covers the streets and doesn&#039;t let much light in. It&#039;s a much cheaper alternative than a subway and is just as effective. Muni would not need to dig underneith the BART station to get past Market Street. San Franciscans, though, would protest against the idea since it would cover people&#039;s views and would just look a bit ugly. 

The traffic for buses on 4th and 3rd Streets is not extremely bad, especially with the diamond lane for the buses. I don&#039;t really see a true need for a subway on the stretch between CalTrain and Market. CalTrain will be extending their system to Transbay Terminal (hopefully) and that would take care of a route down 4th. I don&#039;t see why the Central Subway doesn&#039;t just run from Market Street up to North Beach and use the money that would be spent in SOMA in North Beach. 

Also, in many cities throughout the world, most of the underground stations are not very deep underground. Most local stations in Manhattan have side platforms and are only one level below the street. There is no mezzanime and the faregates are on the platforms. Of course, in order to change platforms, one would have to exit the station onto the street and cross above ground and then re-enter the station, but it seems much cheaper than trying to dig very deep underground. Perhaps the tunnel could go above the Muni station instead. There would be less escalators needed to get to and from the platforms. 

BRT down Stockton seems like a feasible alternative since BRT is easy to implement and will have immediate results. It doesn&#039;t take as long to build like train lines do. I think Muni should definitely look into this option, because if BRT is built properly, it can be just effective as a subway, if not even more because it allows several lines to enter the bus lanes at once. 

Anyhow, I hope Muni chooses the best alternative that is the most effective because we are definitely in need of transit improvements. Too bad we got rid of all the streetcars in the 50s... We could be still riding the B Geary line or the F Stockton.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think elevated is a great idea, except for the fact that it covers the streets and doesn&#8217;t let much light in. It&#8217;s a much cheaper alternative than a subway and is just as effective. Muni would not need to dig underneith the BART station to get past Market Street. San Franciscans, though, would protest against the idea since it would cover people&#8217;s views and would just look a bit ugly. </p>
<p>The traffic for buses on 4th and 3rd Streets is not extremely bad, especially with the diamond lane for the buses. I don&#8217;t really see a true need for a subway on the stretch between CalTrain and Market. CalTrain will be extending their system to Transbay Terminal (hopefully) and that would take care of a route down 4th. I don&#8217;t see why the Central Subway doesn&#8217;t just run from Market Street up to North Beach and use the money that would be spent in SOMA in North Beach. </p>
<p>Also, in many cities throughout the world, most of the underground stations are not very deep underground. Most local stations in Manhattan have side platforms and are only one level below the street. There is no mezzanime and the faregates are on the platforms. Of course, in order to change platforms, one would have to exit the station onto the street and cross above ground and then re-enter the station, but it seems much cheaper than trying to dig very deep underground. Perhaps the tunnel could go above the Muni station instead. There would be less escalators needed to get to and from the platforms. </p>
<p>BRT down Stockton seems like a feasible alternative since BRT is easy to implement and will have immediate results. It doesn&#8217;t take as long to build like train lines do. I think Muni should definitely look into this option, because if BRT is built properly, it can be just effective as a subway, if not even more because it allows several lines to enter the bus lanes at once. </p>
<p>Anyhow, I hope Muni chooses the best alternative that is the most effective because we are definitely in need of transit improvements. Too bad we got rid of all the streetcars in the 50s&#8230; We could be still riding the B Geary line or the F Stockton.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rescue Muni &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Muni miscellany</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator>Rescue Muni &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Muni miscellany</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-75</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Join Us!       &#171; Central Subway: An Alternative Proposal [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Join Us!       &laquo; Central Subway: An Alternative Proposal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crzwdjk</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>crzwdjk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2007 06:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A pedestrian Stockton with light rail will of course not work. The merchants need room for trucks to unload their merchandise. But if the merchants insist that they absolutely must have a traffic jam in front of their stores, then I guess nothing can be done. The same goes for the freeway ramp: is San Francisco that desperate to get more cars into the city? Because if these sorts of attitudes persist, then SF will remain the car-dominated city that it is today. Traffic expands to fill the space available to it, and the more space you have available, the more traffic there will be.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A pedestrian Stockton with light rail will of course not work. The merchants need room for trucks to unload their merchandise. But if the merchants insist that they absolutely must have a traffic jam in front of their stores, then I guess nothing can be done. The same goes for the freeway ramp: is San Francisco that desperate to get more cars into the city? Because if these sorts of attitudes persist, then SF will remain the car-dominated city that it is today. Traffic expands to fill the space available to it, and the more space you have available, the more traffic there will be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:02:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-70</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good luck closing the freeway ramp.  I don&#039;t see that happening unless the Sixth Street ramp is also increased in size and possibly connected to the skyway - highly unlikely.

The more I think of it the more I like an elevated LRV line from Fourth just south of King to at least Bryant.  Whose scenic views will be blocked by such a thing?  Almost nobody&#039;s.  And service would be tons faster.  Perhaps the Safeway and Caltrain stations would like an upper level entrance from the streetcars as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good luck closing the freeway ramp.  I don&#8217;t see that happening unless the Sixth Street ramp is also increased in size and possibly connected to the skyway &#8211; highly unlikely.</p>
<p>The more I think of it the more I like an elevated LRV line from Fourth just south of King to at least Bryant.  Whose scenic views will be blocked by such a thing?  Almost nobody&#8217;s.  And service would be tons faster.  Perhaps the Safeway and Caltrain stations would like an upper level entrance from the streetcars as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fs77</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>fs77</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-69</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fourth and King must be changed, that&#039;s a fact. I wonder why they can&#039;t do an elevated railway right over the intersection, as they hads done in L.A with the Gold line. An elevated railway is as fast as a subway and much cheaper (look at Chicago, parts of New York...) but I guess people would probably complain, saying that they don&#039;t want train speeding by their windows. As for a pedestrian Stockton with light rail, that&#039;s a great idea, but it&#039;s not going to happen. I want to see you convince the Chinatown merchants to close down their main street completely. They can&#039;t even convince Geary merchants to close down two lanes. out of six.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fourth and King must be changed, that&#8217;s a fact. I wonder why they can&#8217;t do an elevated railway right over the intersection, as they hads done in L.A with the Gold line. An elevated railway is as fast as a subway and much cheaper (look at Chicago, parts of New York&#8230;) but I guess people would probably complain, saying that they don&#8217;t want train speeding by their windows. As for a pedestrian Stockton with light rail, that&#8217;s a great idea, but it&#8217;s not going to happen. I want to see you convince the Chinatown merchants to close down their main street completely. They can&#8217;t even convince Geary merchants to close down two lanes. out of six.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crzwdjk</title>
		<link>http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>crzwdjk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rescuemuni.org/2007/07/15/central-subway-an-alternative-proposal/#comment-68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Closing the freeway access at Fourth and King would be a great idea. Right now, the freeway ends and dumps its two-freeway-lanes worth of traffic right onto the Embarcadero, where it continually forms jams and requires long lights such as the one at 4th and King. And tearing down that ramp would pay for itself in property taxes, because it would probably create another lot on which high-rise condos could be built, and make the whole neighborhood more attractive, and thus more profitable in terms of property taxes.

With that obstacle out of the way, a surface-level light rail line in dedicated lanes is probably the way to go, running straight up Fourth to Stockton. Fourth Street is certainly wide enough to be able to take two lanes out without too much trouble. There&#039;d probably be one intermediate station between King and Market, maybe at Folsom. At Market, there would be a station on the south side where the bus stop is now, then on Stockton another station to provide transfers to the eventual Geary line. Then a quick run through the tunnel, and into Chinatown, where Stockton can be dedicated excusively to pedestrians, light rail, and commercial vehicles going to unload their cargo. The first phase of the line can end at Columbus, for easy transfers from the 20 and 41, and the line can continue easily enough onto Columbus.

It would all run at least as fast as BRT, and true level boarding through multiple doors should speed things up a bit. Plus, unlike BRT, you can run two and three car trains on such a line, and get a whole lot more capacity while still maintaining reliable headways. And if there&#039;s still not enough line capacity, then you can start thinking about putting parts of it underground.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Closing the freeway access at Fourth and King would be a great idea. Right now, the freeway ends and dumps its two-freeway-lanes worth of traffic right onto the Embarcadero, where it continually forms jams and requires long lights such as the one at 4th and King. And tearing down that ramp would pay for itself in property taxes, because it would probably create another lot on which high-rise condos could be built, and make the whole neighborhood more attractive, and thus more profitable in terms of property taxes.</p>
<p>With that obstacle out of the way, a surface-level light rail line in dedicated lanes is probably the way to go, running straight up Fourth to Stockton. Fourth Street is certainly wide enough to be able to take two lanes out without too much trouble. There&#8217;d probably be one intermediate station between King and Market, maybe at Folsom. At Market, there would be a station on the south side where the bus stop is now, then on Stockton another station to provide transfers to the eventual Geary line. Then a quick run through the tunnel, and into Chinatown, where Stockton can be dedicated excusively to pedestrians, light rail, and commercial vehicles going to unload their cargo. The first phase of the line can end at Columbus, for easy transfers from the 20 and 41, and the line can continue easily enough onto Columbus.</p>
<p>It would all run at least as fast as BRT, and true level boarding through multiple doors should speed things up a bit. Plus, unlike BRT, you can run two and three car trains on such a line, and get a whole lot more capacity while still maintaining reliable headways. And if there&#8217;s still not enough line capacity, then you can start thinking about putting parts of it underground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
