SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News - Page 103

AndrewK · #**2041** Posted **Oct 22, 2022, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Looks nice, though I'm still irritated/annoyed/disappointed they didn't build a station at the very end of where the tunnel actually exists at North Beach near Washington Square.

source
(with the additional extension in the future, though I'd extend it further down Bay Street to Fillmore to better serve the Marina)

You need turn back track after a final station, so they couldn’t build a station where they took the tunnel boring machines out (which is why they had to keep boring past the Chinatown station in the first place).

ardecila · #**2042** Posted **Oct 23, 2022, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewK

You need turn back track after a final station, so they couldn’t build a station where they took the tunnel boring machines out (which is why they had to keep boring past the Chinatown station in the first place).

No you don't. You can just build a stub terminal with an interlocking before the final station. Depending on the frequency of service, you may need to have 3 platform tracks instead of two at the terminal, but this is for very frequent metro/subway lines, not light rail like Muni*. If money is no object, a tail track is a nicer solution because then departing trains and arriving trains are always on the same side of the platform, and it works as a downpayment on a future extension of the line. But you don't *need* to do this, and a few thousand feet of non-revenue tail track are very expensive.

* - Most of the T-Third runs on the street, which seriously limits how often they can run trains. So they will never operate the Central Subway frequently enough where the tail track is needed, and they can probably get away with a 2-track stub terminal and interlocking.

TowerDude · #**2043** Posted **Oct 23, 2022, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...y-17457607.php

First concepts for second Transbay rail crossing(s). Exciting to see some progress towards this project.

Will this let Amtrak offer services to downtown San Francisco now?

homebucket · #**2044** Posted **Oct 23, 2022, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerDude

Will this let Amtrak offer services to downtown San Francisco now?

Yes it would. And Caltrain to Oakland.

MAC123 · #**2045** Posted **Oct 23, 2022, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yes it would. And Caltrain to Oakland.

And by extension, CAHSR to Oakland. Though that's a bit later.

LineDrive · #**2046** Posted **Oct 23, 2022, 8:02 PM**

It’s a shame such a project couldn’t be built now and be built along with the Athletics new ballpark since it’ll be in need of BART

AndrewK · #**2047** Posted **Oct 23, 2022, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

No you don't. You can just build a stub terminal with an interlocking before the final station. Depending on the frequency of service, you may need to have 3 platform tracks instead of two at the terminal, but this is for very frequent metro/subway lines, not light rail like Muni*. If money is no object, a tail track is a nicer solution because then departing trains and arriving trains are always on the same side of the platform, and it works as a downpayment on a future extension of the line. But you don't *need* to do this, and a few thousand feet of non-revenue tail track are very expensive.

* - Most of the T-Third runs on the street, which seriously limits how often they can run trains. So they will never operate the Central Subway frequently enough where the tail track is needed, and they can probably get away with a 2-track stub terminal and interlocking.

Yes, you are correct, though I don’t think Muni would ever consider it an option given how much of a boondoggle the Embarcadero station was for decades using this setup until they extended the tracks to Caltrain. Though as you point out, the frequency on the T is much less than all of the lines that feed into the Market St subway.

homebucket · #**2048** Posted **Nov 8, 2022, 10:46 PM**

Soft launch on Nov 19, weekend only service between Chinatown and 4th & Brannan. Full service connecting to Vis Valley starting Jan 7.

https://twitter.com/SFMTA_Muni/statu...FyoTDlRZsebgvw

TWAK · #**2049** Posted **Nov 9, 2022, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Looks nice, though I'm still irritated/annoyed/disappointed they didn't build a station at the very end of where the tunnel actually exists at North Beach near Washington Square.

source
(with the additional extension in the future, though I'd extend it further down Bay Street to Fillmore to better serve the Marina)

This actually includes that disused tunnel?

OhioGuy · #**2050** Posted **Nov 9, 2022, 2:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWAK

This actually includes that disused tunnel?

No it doesn't use that old tunnel. I believe that tunnel is part of the dashed gray line on this map, whereas the potential routing for an extension of the Central Subway is represented by the dashed blue line.

TWAK · #**2051** Posted **Nov 9, 2022, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

No it doesn't use that old tunnel. I believe that tunnel is part of the dashed gray line on this map, whereas the potential routing for an extension of the Central Subway is represented by the dashed blue line.

Ok, that map (and others) are a little bit...

Busy Bee · #**2052** Posted **Nov 9, 2022, 4:41 AM**

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*7...bL_cxenOPw.png

homebucket · #**2053** Posted **Nov 20, 2022, 10:31 PM**

Central Subway completed.

Some videos from Opening Day.

• Video Link

k1052 · #**2054** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 4:48 PM**

All I can think about seeing the Central Subway videos and pics is how grossly overbuilt the stations are for two car light rail. An absolute fortune was wasted here.

Busy Bee · #**2055** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 6:31 PM**

^ I dont see how they are "grossly overbuilt". Would you have them with 100' platforms with tons of overcrowding? They are built obviously to accommodate 3 car trains. These are what a basic subway station with small diameter trackway bores is going to look like anywhere in the world. My beef is with some just plain weird aesthetic decisions. If anything the stations seem to lack a common design language and in some cases are under-appointed. The Union Square station concrete wall with utility conduit looks like crap. Please tell me they are going to cover that up and it's not someones actual design decision.

homebucket · #**2056** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The Union Square station concrete wall with utility conduit looks like crap. Please tell me they are going to cover that up and it's not someones actual design decision.

Unfortunately, that was an actual design choice. I agree it would've been nicer to clad it in full white like the rest of the station.

https://sfbayca.com/2022/11/19/first...uni-milestone/

Busy Bee · #**2057** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 6:48 PM**

Gag. Some things don't age well. That doesn't even qualify for the waiting period.

k1052 · #**2058** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ I dont see how they are "grossly overbuilt". Would you have them with 100' platforms with tons of overcrowding? They are built obviously to accommodate 3 car trains. These are what a basic subway station with small diameter trackway bores is going to look like anywhere in the world. My beef is with some just plain weird aesthetic decisions. If anything the stations seem to lack a common design language and in some cases are under-appointed. The Union Square station concrete wall with utility conduit looks like crap. Please tell me they are going to cover that up and it's not someones actual design decision.

Nope 2 car trains only. My complaints are not specific, or limited to what I've seen of the platform level. Everything above that is overbuilt and that's just the parts I can see (assume BOH sizable). I do also think the design elements are fated to age poorly.

Busy Bee · #**2059** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 7:48 PM**

^ Youre right, I stand corrected. I havent followed the Central Subway saga all that closely to be honest. I will say though that since the T line isnt part of the (Market St trunk thus requiring interoperability) Muni Metro, theres no reason they couldnt use a specific rail vehicle on this line like a single long segmented tram/LRV that at lease filled out the USABLE length of the platform which is approx. 210 feet in length. The current 150 foot long 2-car trains leave platform length at both ends and when combined with the lost interior space taken by the cab ends when coupled together thats practically the same capacity as with 3-car trains.

jmecklenborg · #**2060** Posted **Nov 21, 2022, 8:56 PM**

It'll be interesting to see how ridership grows after full service is established. This is a rare example of an existing light rail service suddenly being made to enjoy a red carpet pathway into a downtown.