HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #641  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2008, 7:56 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
In the interest of giving us a Marin whipping boy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
It's not only sad that Marin didn't get a desperately needed BART line, but also because San Francisco would have been much better served by BART had it been built with this original configuration. Imagine two stations on Van Ness today, etc.
It would be nice to have those other BART stations in SF, but do you really think tunneling or laying a tube under the gate would have been worth the expense for the minimal amount of people it would serve? Marin isn't dense by any stretch of the imagination. There aren't that many people in the entire county and BART would only have served those in the eastern corridor (which admittedly is the majority, but still not a large population). I think the existing buses and ferries are a much more cost-effective system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay420 View Post
is it any coincidence that these are also the most expensive areas in the bay area? i guess rich people dont care about the rest of us (surprise surprise).

marin is even 'holding us back' (i mean 'us' here up in sonoma county) by not approving the SMART train
IIRC, that measure required 2/3 to pass in both counties and Marin approved it in the high 50%'s. So it's not like a bunch of rich Marin a-holes just said screw you. It's an incredibly high hurdle. Also, when this comes up again (is it planned for a specific future ballot yet?) I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it pass with the 2/3 required. A lot has changed since this last came up and people are more willing to fund transit projects. You know I'll be voting for it anyway, and telling my neighbors to as well.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #642  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2008, 8:04 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 7,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
IIRC, that measure required 2/3 to pass in both counties and Marin approved it in the high 50%'s.
I think I read that the required support was lowered by the State to just 60% instead of 2/3. So if Marin did support it in the upper 50s, then it just barely fell short of passage. So close to having a convenient rail line connecting to Marin and also having a subway line partially along Geary (and at a cost far less than it would cost today). But close doesn't count in the end.

It just represents another missed opportunity... just like LA had a missed opportunity of having a subway down Wilshire that could be serving people today. Disappointing in both situations. In 20-30 years, do you think more people will be thinking "if only..." about the inactions of today, just as we're doing today with regards to the inactions of the past several decades?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #643  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2008, 9:19 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Maybe it was a 60% requirement and Marin approved it in the low-50's. Either way more people voted for it than against it and it didn't miss by much.

BTW, SMART is strictly between Sonoma and Marin. It won't extent to SF. And I don't think the opportunity is lost yet. I think we're finally about ready to do it. BART to Marin is a separate topic. As I said, I don't think that ever made much sense cost/benefit-wise (outside the extended coverage within SF itself). The Wilshire corridor in LA is many times more dense than anything in Marin.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #644  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2008, 11:06 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 530
SMART did require a two-thirds vote and got just over 65% total from the two counties. Marin was 57.5% in favor. It will be on the ballot again this November and will again require a two-thirds vote.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #645  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 12:17 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,881
thank u wild cowboy for the clarification. sonoma county btw i believe had about 70% approval - amazing to get so many to agree on one thing. yes, pg, i dont think marinites just said 'screw u', im saying (some) dont have the capacity to think about the greater good. (think novato suing to stop trains on the line thru the city)

i am hoping that that this november it WILL pass (with higher bridge tolls, higher gas prices, and construction on the 101 for years and years dragging on)

also, the north bay is the only part of the bay area NOT served by rail transit
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #646  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 12:38 AM
travelinmiles's Avatar
travelinmiles travelinmiles is offline
Funky Urbanist
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston via Fort Worth
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
Absolutely zero.



Maybe in 30-40 years. Maybe.



Absolutely zero.



Not sure what you mean by "place" for the 3rd Transbay Tube (I've never heard of such a thing - there has been talk of a second, which in theory could accomodate both BART and HSR), but there is no political backing for any of these dreams, unfortunately.
I meant there are long term plans in place (at least I have seen plans) and I also meant a second tube for Amtrak.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #647  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 2:45 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelinmiles View Post
I meant there are long term plans in place (at least I have seen plans) and I also meant a second tube for Amtrak.
There are no plans for either a BART to Marin link or an Amtrak link through a new Transbay Tube. At one point in time (in the 1960's) there was a plan for BART to Marin, but that died (and has never been revived) when Marin County withdrew from the BART district. As far as I know there has never been a plan (at least not presented by an actual government agency of any type) to run Amtrak under the Bay. There is a plan for a second BART tube and technically still a plan for BART on Geary, though that plan has been watered down in the past couple of years (with horrendous BART alignments partially caused by the Muni Central Subway's alignment). There has been "talk" of possibly running HSR through a Transbay Tube, though even that has never been in any official plan. Even with the Altamont Pass alignment for HSR, there would be no reason to run HSR under the Bay - if a spur to Oakland is needed, it could run up the east side of the Bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #648  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 4:39 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay420 View Post
yes, pg, i dont think marinites just said 'screw u', im saying (some) dont have the capacity to think about the greater good. (think novato suing to stop trains on the line thru the city)

i am hoping that that this november it WILL pass (with higher bridge tolls, higher gas prices, and construction on the 101 for years and years dragging on)

also, the north bay is the only part of the bay area NOT served by rail transit
I know where you're coming from and didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Just exercising a little creative license to make a point. We've discussed this before and are definitely on the same page, so no worries from my end. I really think this November it will pass. If so, we can all get together and .
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #649  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 5:32 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 530
The MTC's Regional Rail Plan proposes a second Transbay Tube with four bores: two for BART and two for conventional rail and/or HSR. So the government agencies are talking about it, but they need to check under the couch cushions for a few tens of billions of dollars. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, they're still looking at it 20-30 years down the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #650  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 5:45 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
All this talk about BART to Marin brought up a question in my head. Have they ever concidered extending the Richmond line to San Rafael insead of under the Golden Gate?
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #651  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2008, 5:26 PM
CityKid CityKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BK,NY/SF,CA/LB,CA
Posts: 480
But then Marinites would have to go through. . .shhhh. . .don't say it. . .Richmond.
__________________
Everytime you drive to the grocery store, you are killing a polar bear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #652  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 2:58 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,071
Considering that I recall that once someone was actually hit by a stray bullet on the Richmond BART platform, that's a legitimate concern.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #653  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2008, 3:05 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,071
What could have been, is and still needs to be

Quote:
No Subway For You


Streetcar queue at 12th and Market Streets.

In the 1930s, when streetcars were alive and well — over a decade before any sort of BART planning occurred, and three decades before the start of BART construction — San Francisco planned a network of subway tunnels extending across the City that would serve as a rapid transit spine that streetcars could funnel in and out of on their trips to and from downtown. It was not the first time such a system was proposed, nor would it be the last, but it was a milestone of sorts in San Francisco’s transit history. Three older streetcar tunnels — the Stockton Tunnel (completed 1914), the Twin Peaks Tunnel (completed 1918), and the Sunset Tunnel (completed 1928) — were built not for the express purpose of providing rapid transit, but rather, to break through San Francisco’s famous hilly barriers. A fourth tunnel, the Fort Mason Tunnel, was also completed in 1914 in connection with the Panama-Pacific International Exposition the following year. Streetcars led the way in the development of new neighborhoods — or in the urbanization and densification of existing neighborhoods, by making them more accessible — much as cable cars had done a few decades earlier, though the streetcars often burrowed under hills in addition to climbing over them. Meanwhile, streetcars converged from all over the City onto Market Street — but on the surface. The surface of Market was equipped with two tracks in each direction, and it’s not hard to imagine what the chaos of Market Street in the early 20th century must have been like: hordes of pedestrians, and lines of streetcars. A Chronicle editorial from the 1930s once described Market Street as an “elongated four-track car barn.” Clearly, something needed to be done to relieve streetcar congestion. But that was not the only good reason to build a downtown subway.

The plans and studies for a subway coalesced into a formal proposal in 1936, around the same time as both the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge were completed. These two bridges, by connecting the City to the nearby mainland, extinguished the need for ferry service, and they had a profound effect on the way people moved about the region. Even in the 1930s, when over two-thirds of San Franciscans were transit-dependent, there was a worry that transit riders would turn to the automobile and abandon the slow, congested streetcars, thereby only adding to the congestion problem. The traffic that the new bridges could dump everyday onto city streets made this worry that much more acute. The realization that an investment in rapid transit had to be made to keep streetcar service competitive led to this subway proposal. In that sense, their concerns back then were not all that different from our concerns today.

The proposed subway system was rejected. In 1937, voters quite definitively turned down the $49.3 million rapid transit bond measure. In fact, the measure failed to earn even a simple majority of the votes (just 42% voted in favor of the bond), probably because of concern and uncertainty in approving such a large bond issue during economically tenuous times. (The $5 million sewer bond on that ballot also failed. In contrast, the much smaller $2.9 million Airport expansion bond, and the $1.6 million hospital improvement bond — on the same ballot as the rapid transit bonds — both passed.) Like the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge, the subway also would have had a profound, though quite different, effect on travel patterns — by reducing transit travel times, encouraging San Franciscans to stick with their streetcars, and offsetting the impending love affair with the automobile that was to truly set in just a decade later. But rapid transit was not yet to be.

If the proposed subway were built, here is a sketch of what it would have looked like:



The map only includes proposed construction. Then-existing surface streetcar lines that would have connected to the subway are omitted. Also omitted is the Twin Peaks Tunnel, which predates this proposal.

One thing that is immediately striking about this map is how of much of it we ended up building eventually — sort of:

We do have a Market Street subway, which connects directly into the older Twin Peaks Tunnel — San Francisco’s first subway, which had already been in use for almost two decades by the time of this proposal. The two tunnels combined form one long tunnel that extends along most of the diagonal of San Francisco’s square of seven by seven miles. In the 1936 proposal, the subway only extended as far west as Church Street, without connecting the two tunnels. Streetcars running in the Market Street Tunnel would have resurfaced at Church, and then used surface tracks to access either the Sunset Tunnel or the Twin Peaks Tunnel on the way to their outer terminals. The planned subway connection from Market to Howard via Fremont Street (which would have served the Transbay Terminal, completed in 1939, a few years after this proposal) was never built. An underground pedestrian walkway will be built in the future to connect the planned Transbay Transit Center to Market Street.

A subway for the Mission District was proposed with the same alignment now used by the BART tunnel — but under this proposal, streetcars would have emerged from the tunnel near 27th and Dolores Streets, and then followed the Southern Pacific right-of-way through the Bernal Cut as a surface line, from Dolores Street to Ocean Avenue. This proposed surface extension was basically realized a half century after it was proposed, when the J-Church was extended from its former 30th Street terminal to the Balboa Park BART station and to the yard adjacent to the station. The two alignments are quite close, but not identical.

Even in the 1930s, San Francisco dreamed of a north-south subway line to tunnel underneath the City’s densest quarter north of Market, in which the destinations of so many downtown-bound riders were (and still are) to be found. This proposal places a subway under Montgomery Street, filling in a missing subway connection to the north side of the Financial District. The tunnel would have run less than one mile from Market Street to Columbus Avenue, where streetcars would have resurfaced. More recently, the dream of a north-south subway has reappeared a few blocks to the west, as the planned Central Subway, whose Stockton Street alignment misses the Financial District.

But what major piece of this would-be subway system still remains unaccounted for? That would be Geary. The fact that a Geary subway was proposed as early as the 1930s testifies to Geary’s long-standing importance as one of San Francisco’s primary transit corridors. But its tale is one of unrealized promises. It has periodically entered the limelight, poised to finally receive the attention it deserves, only to be ultimately deprived of the favor. This pre-BART rapid transit proposal is interesting in its own right, and there is more that could be said about it. But one reason I brought it up now was to segue into a long-overdue discussion about Geary and its bus rapid transit corridor, currently being planned. (The other reason for writing this now is that a friend has been clamoring at me to post about transit history, so hopefully now he’ll get off my back.) The story of transit on Geary, for all intents and purposes, began in the year 1880 — and that is where we’ll take up the story, as well. Check back soon for further posts on Geary.
Source: http://transbayblog.com/2008/08/19/no-subway-for-you/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #654  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 4:18 AM
CityKid CityKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BK,NY/SF,CA/LB,CA
Posts: 480
Here's a little bit more of SF tunnel history that I recently found. Apparently, the Central Subway isn't the only tunnel in this city that has taken decades to envision, plan, and bring into existence:

Quote:
City's Tunnels The City's Tunnels
When S.F. Can't Go Over, It Goes Under Its Hills
By Kevin Wallace
March 1949
San Franciscans have always been a little proud about having twice as many hills as Rome's noted seven, all within the city limits.

On the other hand, it has often been a pain in the neck to San Franciscans, traveling over and around so much scenic majesty.

A mountain, as Samuel Johnson's dictionary defines it, is an obstruction between two cities. The local mountains, according to a Chronicle editorial of 1910, "obstruct what should be great arteries of traffic."

Today, great traffic arteries themselves are widely regarded as the main obstructions to getting anywhere fast, so it may seem that our forefathers 39 years ago were grumbling at trifles.

But they actually were hemmed in. What they wanted was tunnels.

What they got was tunnels, too, and the tunnels did their job—opening up hitherto isolated wildernesses, so that today they too are just as jammed with commerce as the rest of town.

For example:

Some 40,000 citizens of North Beach had been living serene and rural lives, north of the barriers of Nob Hill, Chinatown and the Hall of Justice, until December 29, 1914.

On that day, at noon, Mayor James Rolph opened the Stockton Tunnel, the North Beach area's new access to the downtown shopping district—or FROM the downtown shopping district (a chance the sponsoring Down Town Association took).

The West-of-Twin Peaks territory was captured, at least to the trolley trade, when the Twin Peaks Tunnel was opened on February 3, 1918. Within a week, real estate dealers consulted their business curves and called the tunnel "a complete success."

As Mayor Rolph remarked at dedication exercises on the preceding July 14: "Westward the course of Empire takes its way."

("For which," a contemporary news story says, "Mayor Rolph was rewarded with a kiss by his better half, and then the crowd dispersed.")

An alternate course of Empire, via Duboce Tunnel to the Sunset district, was opened to the Muni "N" car on October 21, 1928. Again, Mayor Rolph presided, honoring City Engineer M. M. O'Shaughnessy's third tunnel.

Those are the city's three main facilities for going through, rather than over and around, its picturesque impediments. A fourth channel is scheduled to pierce Russian Hill, via Broadway, by 1952.

The city limits also include the State's Funston avenue (Golden Gate Bridge approach) tunnel at the Presidio (1940), and the 6-lane, two-decker hole through Yerba Buena Island for Bay Bridge traffic (1936). But these are not, strictly speaking, city tunnels.

Southern Pacific bored four tunnels between Third and Townsend and the San Mateo County line, totaling 8815 feet, back in 1907 and 1908. And then there's the 1500-foot Belt Line tunnel under Fort Mason, dug by the Harbor Commission in 1914.

But these are railroad tunnels, and are almost as remote from the common man's traffic problem as the final five projects which may properly be called tunnels in our city and county—the Richmond, Mile Rock, College Hill, Vista Grande and Lake Merced sewer tunnels.

But these few results are no measure of the claustrophobic agitation which began about the time Market street became plainly obsolete for traffic, about 1860.

Five years of frenzied geopolitik [sic] maneuvering among the assessment districts preceded the emergence of the Stockton Tunnel; 8 years of the same preluded opening of the Twin Peaks Tunnel, and 10 years of haggling preceded what headlines gradually came to call, not too ambiguously, the "Big Duboce Bore."

But that's nothing. Eighty-five years of false starts led up to last year's $5,000,000 bond election for the project Broadway Tunnel (Abner Doble, who later made steam automobiles, had planned to build the tunnel in 1863.) [The Abner who made the automobiles was actually the grandson of the Abner who planned to build the tunnel. -editor]

OTHER PROJECTS

And here are some other vehicular tunnels which have been "in the works" from time to time, and never officially abandoned:

A Fillmore street low-level tunnel from Sutter to Filbert (1911);
a Steiner street low-level tunnel from Pine to Union;
a Divisadero street low-level tunnel from Pine to Lombard;
a Divisadero street high-level tunnel from Sacramento to Greenwich;
a Eureka Valley tunnel, joining the Mission and Sunset under Mount Olympus;
a branch from the Twin Peaks Tunnel from Laguna Honda station to the Sunset;
a Grove street tunnel to the Sunset;
an automobile tunnel paralleling the trolley bore through Twin Peaks (estimated five years ago at $10,000,000, and so shelved).

An automobile tunnel under Buena Vista Heights, via Waller street;
a 3-tier, $75,000,000 tube, leading from the foot of Buchanan street to Sausalito, of all places (date, 1927);
a rather extensive tunnel "to connect the Richmond, Sunset, and Western Addition Districts with the Marina and North Beach" (1928);

A Lombard street tunnel under Russian Hill (very recent);
a network of tunnels going to all directions under the Bay (1928);
and, finally, a system of automobile tunnels just everywhere, to clear the surface altogether (1930).

These do not include subway plans, which in 1904 and again this year envision city-wide networks. Between these dates, most of the subway plans have concentrated on Market street, and they have been of two types:

1—Subways beneath the present Market street level, and,
2—Transformation of the present Market street level into a subway, by building an elevated highway flush with second-story windows up the street.

To date, our vehicular subway showing is confined to mere underpasses. The best known is the Embarcadero passage under the Ferry Building loop at the foot of Market street, a project which overcame seepage and opened on May 2, 1925.

All the digging up of streets that's been going on of late has, it appears, merely scratched the surface of our traffic problem. We must go deeper.

Meanwhile, here are biographies of our accomplishments to date, tunnel-wise:

THE STOCKTON TUNNEL was conceived by Dr. Hartland Law, during lunch, on January 27, 1910. He convinced the Down Town Association to back "The Open Door to North Beach," and the association convinced the city Supervisors (November 6, 1911).

Gradually, the Supervisors then convinced residents of the tunnel's assessment district. Those who were not convinced, and didn't pay up, lost their property.

(The ensuing auction somehow included a piece of City property at Powell and Clay streets, which was duly sold. This was one of several financial embarrassments which result in the memorable news report that "Mayor Rolph is wroth.")

The project was tied up in law suits during 1912. On April 11, 1913, the contract was awarded to Jacobson & Bade Company. Their "miners with little oil lamps on their caps" started digging into Nob Hill's schist and shale in June, 1913.

The 6-month construction job cost $450,000, the tracks cost $11,000, and damage suits cost $195,000. A cave-in killed one worker, the California cable tracks kept buckling overhead, the nearby Victoria Hotel sued because its guests were annoyed, and the big Metropolitan Life Insurance building on Bush street settled—and settled, expensively.

The tunnel is 911 feet long, 50 feet wide, and arched to a height of 19 feet. In 1938, civic groups began agitating for a new paint job inside. The new coat will be provided in the next few weeks.

THE TWIN PEAKS TUNNEL did more than merely integrate two districts; it created that enormous residential area which has grown up since 1918 between the ocean and those peaks whose proper name is "Los Pechos de la Chola"—"The Breasts of a Chola (Indian) Maiden."

On October 10, 1912, a Chronicle editorial made the customary allusion to downtown traffic congestion, and promised that a Twin Peaks tunnel would "multiply the city by two" and "create a new San Francisco," by opening up 7000 acres beyond the hills.

And as a matter of fact, the city's 1910 population (416,912) has indeed doubled, or nearly doubled, to date. And a good percentage of the increase did settle west of Twin Peaks, after the 1918 trolley tunnel opening.

Here are some spot population ratios of assorted sections in that area, comparing the 1940 and 1920 figures, respectively: 58:10; 64:4; 40:4; 38:1; 86:6; 70:4; 109:12; 29:6; 109:12.

Alert pioneers in the outlands pungled up $3,400,000 of the tunnel's $4,000,000 assessment. And while it was still a-building, they installed $2,808,000 worth of new roads and $3,150,650 worth of new homes.

Tenants poured in on the first trolleys, and merchants arrived to serve them. Everybody sent new taxes back across the hills to City Hall, and everybody benefited.

Everybody, that is, except a few stray autoists and pedestrians who got into the tunnel and ran into trolleys—and Presiding Municipal Judge Herman van der Zee, who claims that vibrations from the tunnel are damaging his home, overhead.

Assessed valuation, West of Twin Peaks, rose $4,000,000 in the tunnel's first six years, and $92,000 more taxes were collected. And all because the tunnel cut 20 minutes off the previous trolley time between Sloat boulevard and Kearny street.

Robert C. Storrie & Co. contracted on November 2, 1914, to take 1000 days and $3,372,000 to complete the 25-by-25-by-12,000-foot project, 8800 feet being underground.

They finished it with a month to spare.

Shifts of 500 and more workers had carved through 5000 feet of sand, much of it saturated; 2300 feet of clay and 3500 feet of rock. They dynamited a lot, and three men were fatally injured in one delayed blast.

They lined the cavern with steel and concrete, installed ventilating, drainage and lighting systems, and fixed up two stations along the way—Laguna Honda station, with steps leading 60 feet up to the surface, and Eureka station, emerging 72 feet overhead.

On July 14, 1917, the contractors turned the tube over to the city which then took seven months preparing for its first trolley. When the trolley arrived, it spent exactly six and a half minutes getting from Market street to West Portal on the other side. Mayor Rolph summed up the whole thing as "bully."

THE DUBOCE TUNNEL, also called the Sunset tunnel, was supposed to open the Sunset District to civilization. It was discussed by reluctant assessment districts for 10 years, however. By the time it was installed, the Sunset had already grown up.

The preliminary skirmishes were so extravagant, including brass bands serenading the Supervisors' chambers, that the actual building of the tunnel was rather an anti-climax. The Youdall Construction Co. finally signed a $1,247,592 contract on November 25, 1925, started digging the following June, and finished February 4, 1928. That October, the tunnel opened.

From Duboce avenue and Scott street to Carl and Cole streets, the reinforced concrete Duboce tunnel extends 4232 feet, 25 feet wide and 23 feet high. Like the Twin Peaks job, and unlike the Stockton tunnel, it is for streetcars only.

Woman had come into her own during the construction period, which was enlivened on November 15, 1926, when Miss Doris Lorentzen became "the first girl to enter the tunnel." At another point, four girls rode on a steamshovel to the area, and later, "four dainty flappers" tamped earth into place around some ties.

The tunnel inspired a Parade of Progress in 1927, publicized by photographs of "Mrs. Minnie White and a steamshovel." Mrs. White had been an ardent backer of the project.

Three workers were injured during construction, but none fatally.

THE BROADWAY TUNNEL—Well, it will be 14 months before land titles are cleared, when two years of work can being on Ole Singstad's blueprint. Two double-lane bores will carry autos on Broadway from Mason to Larkin streets. Since the city is standing the bill, there are no beefs from any special assessment districts.

But another minor obstacle has arisen. The overhead for undergrounds is going up, just like everything else. The city has set aside $5,000,000 for the new bore, and now it appears it will cost $6,000,000.

But City Engineer Ralph G. Wadsworth is confident. "We'll dig it up somehow," he says.

[The Broadway tunnel began construction on May 1, 1950 and officially opened on December 21, 1952. It was built by the Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. The twin bores extend from Powell to Larkin streets and the tunnel measures 1616 feet from portal to portal, and 11 feet wide. Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 21 December 1952. 1.]
Source: San Francisco Chronicle. 27 March 1949. 1, 10.
Here is the source: http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgtun.htm
__________________
Everytime you drive to the grocery store, you are killing a polar bear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #655  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2008, 12:45 AM
quashlo quashlo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 566
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/MNS412SGBC.DTL

Quote:
BART considers higher fares for peak hours
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008


BART is becoming so popular during peak commute hours that agency officials are looking at charging patrons more to ride trains, park in its lots and use certain stations when demand is highest.

The idea is to spread use of the system more evenly throughout the day.

Only so many people can fit onto the trains, flow through the stations or find space at station parking lots, said Kenya Wheeler, BART senior planner. And while BART can currently accommodate all the passengers traveling through its system, heavy use during peak hours is pushing the system near its limits.

Earlier this week, BART hit a one-day ridership record when the agency counted more than 405,000 people boarding the system. Last month, the average weekday ridership was nearly 370,000 - about 15,000 more than in August 2007. High gas prices, heightened concern over air pollution and increasingly congested roadways are driving a surge in transit ridership, not just in the Bay Area but across the country, transit experts say. Reaching capacity is a mounting concern voiced by transit operators, according to a study released this week by the American Public Transportation Association.

BART is set up to handle approximately 500,000 people a day, but "it would be a tight load," said BART spokesman Linton Johnson.

Already, trains during the high-demand hours - roughly 7 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. - are jam-packed, particularly entering and leaving downtown San Francisco.

Planners want to stave off congestion on BART by essentially altering when and where people travel.

Hitting them in the pocketbook could be an effective tool. If it costs more to ride BART at 8 a.m. than 10 a.m., more people could opt to take a later train. If it costs more to take the train to Montgomery Street Station in San Francisco's Financial District than it does to Powell Street Station one stop away, more people might choose the cheaper exit. Charging more at station parking lots during periods of high demand also could prompt people to rearrange their schedules.

"It's taking people who want to do one thing and getting them to do something else," said Jeffrey Tumlin, a principal with Nelson\Nygaard, a transportation consulting firm working with BART.
'I don't have the luxury'

"Tell that to my boss," said Maggie Frank, a corporate travel planner who commutes on BART from Oakland to the Financial District and is expected to be at her desk by 8 a.m. "I don't have the luxury of starting later. I wish."

Her friend Ellen Sun also takes BART to work, commuting between Daly City and the Financial District. The trains are more crowded, she said. "I used to be able to get a seat maybe 50 percent of the time on my way home," said Sun, an executive assistant. "Now I'm lucky if it's one day a week."

While she doesn't want to pay more to take the train, she might not grumble too loudly if it means more elbow room during her commute. "The trade-off may be worth it," she said.

While the extra revenue from higher fares and parking fees could alter behavior, it also could generate additional revenue to help pay for longer-term fixes, Tumlin said.

Some of the more costly improvements BART is considering: installing faster elevators and escalators at the busiest stations to move people in and out quicker, adding more doors to the trains so passengers can get on and off faster, expanding the train fleet, and putting in a more advanced train control system that would allow the rail cars to run faster and closer together.

The idea of building a second Transbay Tube also has been floated.

Whether BART ends up increasing prices during peak hours remains to be seen.

Tumlin's firm is working with BART on a study, which should be completed next spring, of the benefits and disadvantages of such a strategy. The BART Board of Directors - a nine-member panel of elected officials - will make the final decision.
Social justice concerns

When the BART board heard the plan, it was clear that the notion of altering people's travel times and paths by changing the price would not win slam-dunk approval.

"When you have market-rate pricing, that's essentially a fare increase," said board President Gail Murray. In the end, she said, it comes down to a social justice issue that could hurt those who would feel the financial pinch hardest and rely on transit the most.

"I have a philosophical concern about that at the most basic level," she said.

Tumlin said the study will look at the economic impact on BART riders, including whether those living in particular areas would bear a disproportionate burden.

The concept of using pricing to alter behavior is not new to the transit industry. Washington has charged higher fares during peak demand for more than 30 years, and New Jersey Transit has offered discounts on round-trip travel except when certain stations are used during the traditional morning and evening periods.

Charging tolls during peak-demand periods to manage roadway congestion also is gaining traction in cities internationally and is being contemplated in San Francisco.

"Is (the idea) politically controversial?" Tumlin said. "Absolutely."

Commuters wait for a train at Powell Street Station on a weekday evening. This week, BART hit a one-day ridership record. (Katy Raddatz / The Chronicle)


Trains getting more crowded (Chronicle Graphic)


Commuters at Embarcadero Station crowd into a BART car in San Francisco, Calif. BART trains are being reconfigured to pack in more commuters by removing some seats and adding hanging hold straps. Katy Raddatz / The San Francisco Chronicle
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #656  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2008, 3:56 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Maybe I'm crazy, but I though we were suppose to encourage people to take public transportation by making it more accesible to them? This might just make it so people would want to drive insead of riding BART, especially if its more expensive. How about lowering the general fare and keeping what we have now for peak hours? It seems to me that every time they increase the fare, not much changes. I personally dont see this going anywhere.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #657  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2008, 5:06 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Try a little carrot instead of stick, eh? Not a bad idea.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #658  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2008, 5:10 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
I'd like to see this get up and running full time. From the Market Street Railway blog:

Quote:

Car No. 952 runs past the ballpark on King Street during the last E-line demonstration service on August 31, 2008. David Dugan photo.

Ride the E-line to South Beach
September 5, 2008

This September 14th, Muni will once again be running historic streetcars in demonstration service for the E-Embarcadero line. This time it covers both the Sunday Streets event in the morning and a neighborhood fair in the afternoon, so the E-line cars will operate from Caltrain to Pier 39 from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. Rides will be free all day.

This is a great chance to tour some of the city's newest residential neighborhoods and meet many of the neighbors. The folks in the South Beach-Rincon Hill-Mission Bay Neighborhood Association are throwing a big 'block party' on the Bay side promenade of The Embarcadero between Pier 40 and McCovey Cove from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm (the Giants are on the road that day.) They're great supporters of the permanent E-line and have asked Market Street Railway to staff a table to tell folks all about it.

The more people that turn out to ride the E-line during this demonstration service, the better case we can make to try to accelerate at least partial start-up of the permanent E-line. So take a ride and come see us in South Beach on Sunday, September 14th.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #659  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2008, 7:56 AM
quashlo quashlo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 566
BART doesn't seem that crowded to me... There's always plenty of seats and standing space at the ends of the train because everybody likes to congregate in the middle of the train.

The peak fare surcharge seems like a disaster in the making... It may break even, or perhaps it could even increase revenue, but the system as a whole would end up carrying less people, which is the antithesis of BART's goal. They need to be increasing capacity, not decreasing demand. They should already be moving on getting three-door cars and redesigning the interiors to allow for more standees and less seats. Beyond just removing two seats near the door, they should just convert the whole middle of the car to longitudinal seating. The cars are so wide, there'd be plenty of room to carry more people... They just won't be sitting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #660  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2008, 8:12 AM
quashlo quashlo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 566
I'm surprised this hasn't yet caught others' attention, but the MTA has released its recommended service changes based on the TEP data. There's been some changes since the last proposal in February, and overall, I think these make more sense... I'm still puzzled that they've agreed with dropping the service to the Golden Gate Bridge. The 30 to 28 combination is much more reasonable for the average tourist and it goes through most of the tourist areas... Now they either take a Golden Gate Transit bus (good luck finding one, plus the Muni passes and transfers aren't good on them) or go 38 to 28.

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/tepdraft.htm

There's also a frequency chart on there that nicely summarizes the changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:50 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.