You know how the site looks now. And you know how it will look for the next six years or so as home to the Temporary Transbay Terminal. But do you know how the area might one day look once the Transbay Park and other proposed development takes place?

Plugged-in people can now answer yes.

30 thoughts on “Transbay Park Potential: Post-Temporary Transbay Terminal (Et Al.)”
  1. private funding for the TJPA will pull out of the Transbay project if High speed rail does not go there…this plan is all predicated on that.

  2. The homeless people should really enjoy that park. All that grass is the perfect place for them to dispose of their needles.

  3. I can’t decide if it looks more like the sequel to Union Square (NYC) or the YBC/Metreon courtyard.
    …and what of Portico?!

  4. Quentin Kopp has no authority to keep HSR from coming to the Transbay Terminal. He was just blowing smoke out of his you-know-what before. It would take a new proposition to cut the line short.

  5. Brutus,
    What are you talking about? He’s the chair of the High Speed Rail Authority, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority has to submit proposals to that board..he can easily deny funding to a 1.3 mile/2 B extension.

  6. Here’s my email reply from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority regarding Kopp’s comments about high speed rail authority:
    Thank you for your interest in the Transbay Transit Center Program. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority is predicated and mandated by state, regional and local laws to design and build a facility that can serve as the northern terminus for California High Speed Rail. Proposition 1A, the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) $9.95 billion bond measure, also states that our facility, the Transbay Transit Center, will be High Speed Rail’s northern terminus. There are many reasons for using the Transbay Transit Center to facilitate High Speed Rail travel throughout the state – one, as you have mentioned, is that it greatly increases local connectivity.
    The TJPA is proceeding with that as our mandate, a mandate that the entire City family stands behind. We cannot comment on statements that the Chair of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board has made in the media. We will be pursuing some of the CHSRA funds to cover a portion of the costs of designing and building a facility that will serve their system. However, it is not clear how the CHSRA intends to allocate that funding at this time.
    The Transbay Program’s funding plan currently does not rely on CHSRA funding. Our first phase of construction will begin on December 10th, with a groundbreaking ceremony at the site of the temporary terminal facility. Phase I consists of building the new terminal, while Phase II will extend the rail from 4th and Townsend into the new facility to make a truly multi-modal facility that will serve the region for the next generation. Phase II has an identified funding gap and the TJPA is in search of additional federal, state, local and public/private partnerships to close that gap. We will add you to our update list and thank you again for your interest.
    We encourage you to direct any additional questions regarding California High Speed Rail to the CHSRA at or (916) 324-1541.
    Lauren Profeit

  7. Considering the wording of prop 1a, I would assume that a lawsuit would be filed if the CAHSRA attempted to end the line at 4th and King. That was merely Kopp spouting off, in hopes of drawing in more Federal funding (IMO). Kopp doesn’t just get to build the train where he wants it to go, regardless of what his title is – the main reason for the change from prop 1 to prop 1a was to ensure that the leg from LA Union Station to SF Transbay Terminal was completed first and foremost.

  8. “who uses the bus to go across the bay?”
    many people.
    Several thousand people a day currently take AC Transit’s transbay buses, including several of my co-workers. Not everyone lives within walking distance of BART in the East Bay, and most East Bay BART stations this side of the hills have little parking. The Transbay buses snake all through the hills of Oakland, Berekley, and other areas. They’re quite convenient. A lot of these same people take it one direction, using casual carpool in the a.m. and the buses in the p.m.
    There’s also a pretty healthy reverse commute (SF to East Bay) to jobs in west Berkeley and job areas not served by BART. My ex-roommate used to commute to his job at a design firm in west berkeley by transbay bus. In fact, if you want or need to use your bicycle on either end of the trip, the Transbay buses are the best option, because you can’t bring them on BART during rush hour.
    But more importantly, for all of you down-on-buses people, that’s the only way people are going to be able to get into SF to work once BART is at total capacity in 15 years. I’ve seen the numbers. It’s not very far off. With the projected job growth in SF, even with robust housing growth in the City, BART will be at capacity around 2030. That means a LOT more people on Transbay buses — (and dedicated bus lanes on the bridge) — and ferries, unless BART builds a new Transbay tube and series of stations further south of Market, but that probably won’t happen before the current line runs out of capacity. In any event, many people take the Transbay buses now, but a lot more will in the future.
    And on top of that, all that development on Treasure Island will be served by Muni buses that come to the Transbay Terminal.
    And to finish this off, the buses that use the Transit Center aren’t only transbay AC Transit buses. The Terminal is also the terminus/start for 6 major Muni lines, several major Golden Gate Transit and SamTrans lines, as well as Greyhound (and other operators). Once there is a train station there (particularly HSR), the bus usage to the Terminal will go up substantially as people from around the region will need to get to the station.

  9. Looks great! And the sooner the better.
    Also, in this vision, Tishman gets a clue and squares off the corners of the Infinity near clone entitlement across Main Street. Maybe the units will have enough usable space to prove saleable when they hit the market . . . .

  10. This “looks” great, but it also says “people with no current address” magnet to me. What should be a great enhancement to the neighborhood, could turn into a terrible problem. Could a neighborhood homeowners group pay for private security in the park to help it remain a park instead of a homeless camp?

  11. Gotta agree with intheknow.
    If you aren’t on a Bart line, the transbay buses are great–and fast. You can get from the Oakland hills to downtown SF in 45 minutes. Very nice.

  12. Keep up the play & field areas – prove SF’s family-friendly focus here. Playgrounds please – for different ages. Looks nice from air, let’s get the kid-friendly amenities which make a ‘hood truly work. (all the more important in this business leaning area of SF)

  13. I am agree with Invented. I would love to see a park usable by all, including kids.
    But the reality is even if there are family-focus additions to the park, the park will be just like South Park — or now Rincon Park…. i.e., a magnet for the homeless camps. I avoid taking my kid to South Park, and now have to avoid Rincon Park after I found a small baggie with white powder residue in it right next to where I setup his tee-ball tee. I really doubt it was baby powder.
    The city is very middle-class family unfriendly, and unless we vote for tough love — which won’t happen — it will continue to prioritize the “homeless rights” over kids needs. I have lived in Rincon Hill since ’97, but will be moving from the city soon for that very reason. The neighborhood will be continue to be made of the young, or the recent empty nesters, with no long-term residents.
    We’ll be buying a house and 2 cars, our carbon footprint will increase, we’ll spend hours a day commuting, but our kids will have a solid public education and be safe.
    The park just isn’t an exciting addition unless the city thinks different.

  14. I will hold off judgment of “homeless encampments” until the Transbay plan is complete. There are great parks in the city, like Huntington Park, that do not have homeless residents, and I have high hopes that the city won’t let the decades long transbay plan be ruined by something so simple as homeless, which can be easily prevented with patrols.

  15. PS I think having kids everywhere ruins a neighborhood. Noe Valley is one of the least desirable neighborhoods in this city because of that. It is absolutely out of control going down there, it seems the entire city of parents have been shoehorned into a few blocks in the city, and there is massive crying, yelling, screaming overload.

  16. sf- I agree..
    There should be a city ordinance limiting 2 kids per block face, per hetero couple. 2 more per a gay couple.
    Strollers should require a permit and a license plate.No more than 2 kids wide.
    Crying outside or a park should be controlled by the noise ordinances.
    Yes, basically these out of control problems are the major reason for big price drops in Noe Valley homes. it’s sad to see it going downhill.

  17. The worst part is all the kids invading parks that should really be for dogs only. Dogs are much more important than children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *