I suppose you're suggesting elevated tracks because you found the Municipal Railway's surface-subway system disappointing enough to be scrapped and replaced with something drastically different. Even though I'll gladly compete in the civic sport of Muni-bashing, and I'll readily acknowledge the railway's delays and crowding, I also know these don't constitute a transit disaster requiring the radical transformation of San Francisco's cityscape. The Muni Metro, despite its problems, remains well used and won't be replaced.
As noted in the article about the J Church line, Muni has repair issues. Boston uses the same Breda cars, so perhaps our repair guys are underfunded--I don't know. I do know some delays are systemic: there's only one track in each direction in the downtown subway, and street-running trains in the neighborhoods are delayed by double-parking, signals, and traffic congestion. The trunk line in the Market Street Subway is like a slow conveyor belt during the rush hours. Evening rush is marked by trains that cannot depart the stations because so many among the huge crowds are holding the doors open, trying to be the very last person to squeeze through. All in all, Muni Metro trip times average 9.6 mph, according to
Wikipedia, although that looks suspiciously like the number for the entire system, including buses. In any case, I average 12 mph on my bike, even on Market Street in the Financial District at rush hour.
Despite all the issues and all the complaining, Muni Metro remains popular--as in, it has more riders than every light rail system in America except Boston, and
ranks third in terms of daily boardings per mile. We can't really say the system isn't working, but we can certainly complain it isn't working as well as we'd like and support reasonable efforts to speed up the trains.
As to building an elevated system to replace the surface-subway sytem--not a chance in hell. You could float no balloon more certain to be shot down quickly by the entire citizenry than an El. With the exception of soaring bridges over the Bay, San Francisco hates elevated transportation. With a passion. We tore down not one, but two double-decker freeways and replaced them with boulevards. Anything new that might cast a shadow onto, or block the view from, a home or office or hotel room brings swift, crippling legal action--and garners public sympathy by default. Imagine the lawsuits and poisonous recriminations if the City tried to build an elevated Metro system through the neighborhoods.
In any case, more San Franciscans who use public transit ride the bus. Muni should focus time and money improving service for its 495,000 daily bus riders, first and foremost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drifting sun
The F train is the "old-style" streetcar that runs up and down Market, right? I think I rode that also but did not like the herky-jerky ride at all (inexperienced operator or just inherent because of the older, not as smooth electric propulsion?). I agree about BART and that is exactly what I thought when I took it, not only across the bay to Oakland (we flew out of Oakland), but also a little ways past Embarcadero. The downside to current BART cars are the nasty upholstered seats, but they are due for new rolling stock I believe.
Burying transit is not popular at the moment because of the financial strain municipalities are under (didn't mean that to sound like a conservative talking point), but has anyone floated the idea of elevated tracks? I'm not sure if that would really be any cheaper and residents might think at first it would be an aesthetic nightmare, but a two-three track wide elevated rail viaduct doesn't seem to create such an ugly barrier as a 4-8 (or 8-20) lane wide freeway overpass. I am going to Vancouver, B.C. in September; I will make it a point to spend copious amounts of time on, around, and underneath the Skytrain, and hopefully gain a better sense for how elevated can work (or not) in American cities.
FFlint - good article; so it seems that among other issues the train cars are overused/possibly bad designs? Muni uses Breda rolling stock, I wonder if Siemens or Bombardier stock are more robust. I think it is a frustrating situation for a metro service to always be playing catch-up on maintenance.
|
Prev
; I too much prefer the option of burying metro lines like they should be. I thought maybe since everyone is worked up into a tizzy with the central subway, those kind of options might not be that popular. So it's at grade for the time being, now the question is - if so many recognize a simple solution like stoplight preemption would solve a lot of headaches, what is the holdup? Are those systems prohibitively expensive? Too expensive and time consuming to train traffic light controllers to pay attention to the problem intersections? Automobile rights activists throwing a wrench into the debate (something I would expect here, in Denver, but not in S.F.)?
Linear Mode
