The San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s Plans and Programs Committee has just recommended that $173,212 in Prop K funds be allocated to a high-level feasibility study for a northern extension of the Central Subway from its current planned terminus in Chinatown to Fisherman’s Wharf, an extension which is being championed by SF NexTstop.

San Francisco’s Transportation Authority Board will decided whether or not to approve the recommended allocation and feasibility study next week. The Authority Board consists of the eleven members of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors sitting as commissioners.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    We have to do this. I think it should run all the way to The Marina, but it must run at least to Fisherman’s Wharf.

  2. Posted by mas

    This makes so much sense. So probably not going to happen.

  3. Posted by Dan

    This should run under Columbus to Bay Street, then at street level on Bay Street to Fillmore.

  4. Posted by Tim Bracken

    If we allowed the entire city to vote on a single 134-unit waterfront development last year, why not open up this issue (which directly affects far more people) to the electorate as well? Leaving transit decisions to the “judgment” of the SFMTA simply has not worked.

  5. Posted by redseca2

    Getting so close to Star Fleet Command.

  6. Posted by Sam

    Subway the entire length. Seriously, I know that your idea sounds ok but for some reason Muni literally cannot go from above ground to underground or vice versa without incurring a minute or two (or more) wait. It’s unfathomable to me why the N has to pause on the Embarcadero near Folsom for that length of time, but it does.
    Take the N somewhere and investigate for yourself. I know they have to change the ramps, but its a whole production. The sign changes, the ramps change, then theres just literally a way while something occurs. Seems like a minor detail but all these things add up to our terrible transit system

  7. Posted by BigV

    This is such a clear and obviously good thing to do.

  8. Posted by the wolf

    this is a subway for tourists. that entire area is walkable, bikeable and has plenty of transit.
    if you want to add value to residents, while also curbing car use, a Geary line and Van Ness line is way more important.
    this proposal is a colossol waste

  9. Posted by lol

    this is a subway for tourists
    This is just not true. NB is densely populated and many workers need access to the Fidi or Caltrain. I know I did when I lived there.
    Yes some tourists would use it too. Anything wrong with that?

  10. Posted by Futurist

    Yes! this is a long term plan that SF will benefit from.
    And no, the wolf: this is NOT a colossal waste. It is part of a larger system that will be important to our city in the next several decades and even beyond.
    Why so negative?

  11. Posted by Joel

    This would also be great because it gives the city an excuse to upzone this area. The Hill Dwellers are gonna scream so loud on this one.

  12. Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

    Hmm. I’m not a big proponent of using the vintage cars for the “E” line. I feel with the amount of people that need moving along the Embarcadero over the next few years and beyond due to growth along the corridor, I think the “E” line should be using the “N’ style trains.
    If you buy into that, you would have the “E” and “T” terminate fairly close to each other in the Fisherman’s Wharf area with both lines using the same style trains. How about connecting those two lines there so you have a loop with the tail running south as it does now from CalTrain?
    If we’re going to reevaluate the route, why not go the not-so-extra mile on a loop?

  13. Posted by lol

    I agree with Joel, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers will be all other this one with many fake reasons. The real reason being that anything new dilutes their stranglehold on the neighborhood. If you have convenient access to Caltrain, you’ll have more affluent techies moving in, which will bring new people with different point of views.
    Ad we all know THD just hates having to deal with different point of views.

  14. Posted by the wolf

    why not walk north beach to fidi? its a 5min walk.
    OK, so colossal waste was a bit strong. But I think a subway line along geary and van Ness is a much bigger need

  15. Posted by Joe

    I see a few google funded subway stops in the not too distant future.

  16. Posted by Fishchum

    This wouldn’t be “just for tourists”. In addition to North Beach residents, I know a lot of people who live in the Marina who would use this line – either by walking over to Fisherman’s Wharf or taking the 30 or the 45.
    On a related note, hasn’t an EIR been produced for the extension of the “F” line? I recall reading plans to extend through the existing Fort Mason tunnel and terminating thereafter. I believe any plans to extend it all the way into the Presidio along Crissy Field would be met with torches and pitchforks by the NIMBY Marina residents, based on their reaction to the idea of turning the old degaussing station into a fish-n-shrimp shack.

  17. Posted by sf

    Decision: it will be a good idea.
    Can I have my $173,000 now?

  18. Posted by sf

    SF is a tourist based economy (no, it’s not tech sorry). Getting tourists from their nest at the Wharf to other parts of the city quickly to spend their tens of billions annually is a good thing.

  19. Posted by lol

    the wolf,
    not everyone can do your walk speed. Humans walk slower than wolves and NB-FiDi is closer to 15-20 minutes. When I was on Telegraph Hill I could not do less than 15. The traffic lights would eat 5 minutes easily.
    We could say the same thing for Paris. Why do they need metro stations everywhere? In Paris you’re almost never more than 1000 feet from a metro station. Maybe they’re stupid or wasteful, or both, dunno.

  20. Posted by Jake

    A North Beach station would make it more attractive to live in North Beach and Russian Hill and work in SOMA and Mission Bay. Given the job growth, that should add value to homes in those areas.
    FWIW, it’s a 0.5 mile 10 minute walk from the North Beach station location to the Chinatown Station.

  21. Posted by PradoStreet

    Uh, Fisherman’s Wharf is NOT the Marina. Marina residents going to FiDi on public transit take the clean efficient Marina Express busses. Why get off to go underground?
    This money should have been used instead for;
    A. Electrification of CalTrain
    B. Extension of CalTrain to Transbay Terminal
    C. Geary BRT and initial subway work
    D. Van Ness BRT
    E. Buying a LOT more trains, busses and trams
    F. Hiring a lot more drivers
    Etc. etc.

  22. Posted by Jill

    .5 mile is a 7 min walk

  23. Posted by Jake

    “In normal-weight adults, the gross energy consumed per unit distance vs. walking speed relationship is U-shaped. The minimum energy cost required to walk a given distance occurs at ∼1.4 m/s (∼5 km/h or 3 miles/h), which is also the preferred walking speed of normal-weight adults.”
    (see namelink)
    Which means it takes about 10 minutes on average to walk 0.5 mile on a flat path, though everyone is welcome to their own pace.

  24. Posted by John

    The tunnel-boring machinery is already underground. The costs of this extension are nowhere near the realm of costs to run a line under Geary or Van Ness, which I believe should happen eventually. Not completing this extension would be a mistake that I’m sure we’ll end up paying more later to complete.

  25. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    Thumbs up! Let complete the last mile!

  26. Posted by Fishchum

    PradoStreet – Who here said that Fisherman’s Wharf WAS the Marina? I said that Marina residents would walk or take the 30 or 45 to the Fisherman’s Wharf station. This would be to get to AT&T Park, Caltrain, and Mission Bay. I don’t why you brought the weekly FiDi commute into this.

  27. Posted by LJL

    Agree with John…it probably would have been better to build down Geary in the first place or electrify/extend Caltrain, but given that the machines are already running to Columbus it seems to make sense to build this out at this point.

  28. Posted by REpornaddict

    Good idea. Fishermans Wharf is strangely isolated from good transport links for somewhere so central to tourists stays here.

  29. Posted by cfb

    “SF is a tourist based economy” -sf
    Several years ago healthcare surpassed tourism as the number one money-maker when it comes to the economy of SF city-proper (unless it switched back again and i never noticed). And of course there’s also finance, government stuff, tech, etc, etc, etc. And why pretend SF is in a bubble that’s isolated from the rest of the Bay Area? Tech may mostly be centered south of SF city-proper, but it’s not like that somehow means it has no relation to the city…and plenty of it is in SF anyways (and more seems to always be moving in). Yeah tourism is huge, but it’s not like SF’s economy is completely dependent on it. Sorry for the derail, but people often seem to forget that SF/the Bay Area has quite a diverse economy. It’s not just tourism and tech.
    Anyways, this extension would be a good thing for tourists and residents alike. I can’t wait to see how the telegraph hill dwellers try to stop this.

  30. Posted by sf

    Old people going to the hospital frequently and dying creates an economy? Wow, capitalism really is sad.

  31. Posted by Gordon

    This extension would be wonderful, and I hope they build it, but please keep the 2019 date for opening the Phase 2 stations up to Chinatown. Then add North Beach and Fisherman’s Wharf stations as a Phase 3.

  32. Posted by Jim

    For people who don’t know, the surface north of Greenwich or Lombard in North Beach is pretty much sand and landfill. The T will have to surface right before this area. I hope SFMTA and SFCTA decides to grow a pair and push for a dedicated surface right-of-way to Fisherman’s Wharf (and potentially to the Marina and Presidio).
    As far as Geary goes, I’d much rather have BART build an underground line. Allows for potential expansion to the Sunset and (unlikely) to Marin County. This won’t happen though as long as James Fang is still on the BART board.

  33. Posted by Zig

    Jim- BART never was and never will be going to Marin and for good reason. It would be the dumbest heavy rail line in the world by far. I would literally protest
    Someone posted about the E line using the Breda street cars. Even better I have often wondered why SF doesn’t add surface lines with modern, low floor light weight LRV like you see in the rest of the world. I would replace the J with these and put it on Market as well as running them all along the waterfront. Who knows where-else additional tracks could be added (Golden Gate Park museums maybe). There are great answers out there but you just need to look outside the US to find them

  34. Posted by Zig

    Regarding the extension, this makes an embarrassment better.

  35. Posted by Anon

    Zig, care to explain why you feel that way about BART? Even extending BART to the Richmond district would still be a game changer for the 80% of the city’s land area that isn’t near a rapid transit line. Muni is not rapid transit. Surface streetcars are a poor substitute for a real rail line. BART is the only thing we have that approaches the convenience and speed that you get from the subways in other world-class cities. So I would be all for it.

  36. Posted by Adam

    Geary Subway.

  37. Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

    @Zig, that was me commenting about the E line cars. Didn’t know the Muni cars were called “Breda.” Thanks.
    Interesting point about the low floor cars. One of my concerns about the mix of the vintage (low floor) and Breda cars (lowish & raised floor) is the mix of those two types of cars at certain stations that support both elevated and low floor cars – low floor cars being supported on the outside of the station, Breda cars being supported on the inside of the station.
    I saw during America’s Cup the E line mixing with the Breda cars (N & T) on the muni lines between CalTrain and Folsom. Those stops (CalTrain, 2nd, Brannan, Folsom/Harrison) support both elevated and low floor cars. On a few rare occasions, I saw people “who were on the wrong side of the platform” running across tracks and jumping up on platforms (or visa versa) depending on which style of car was coming to those dual use stations. I can see that being a nightmare at scale if both style cars were implemented on the same track, so I’m simply assuming one style car to serve all Muni needs which would bring predictability to at least the type of car used in the system.
    Of course, this would be no issue if the E was Breda and the F remained vintage since the track that serves both F and E are all the same type of station, ground level.

  38. Posted by anon

    “As far as Geary goes, I’d much rather have BART build an underground line”
    “Jim- BART never was and never will be going to Marin and for good reason”
    Yes, please, Bart down Geary. I don’t even care about Marin. Even if they built the Bart only down Geary and then terminated, that would be fantastic. Would have a quarter million daily riders on day one, easy.
    But pleeeeease do have the Geary line built by Bart and NOT by Muni. If you’ve ever ridden both, you would immediately understand why.
    Bart trains are long, fast, and smooth, but Muni trolleys are small, slow, and break down all the time. A Bart line would take less than half the travel time, and hold 5 times as many people as a Muni line could.
    And yes, please finish the Central Subway to Fisherman’s Wharf. Don’t let the Telegraph Hill Dwellers get in the way though. They’re a bigger obstacle to this than the money ever was.

  39. Posted by lol

    Were I in charge with unlimited funds, I would take this occasion to do some type of Circle Line.
    The line would head West on Bay street, then take a hook South on Van Ness, go all the way to South Van Ness, follow Division East, take Brannan and merge back with the outbound line between SOMA and Caltrain. Some trains would go back into the circle by going back North.
    What this would accomplish in addition to the current service:
    – Connect to the entrance of the Marina
    – North-south connectors along VN
    – Direct access from VN/Market to Caltrain
    – Connect the Mission to Caltrain then FiDi then NB
    An alternative would be to extend the Bay street leg to Fillmore and do a large U-turn to go back to Van Ness through Union.
    Hey, one can always dream.

  40. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    The standard answer it will be a very expensive extension and there is no money. Now that I think more of it, why not? There are stations in Glen Park and SSF and it does not look like they have whole lot of riders. My guess is the Geary line is likely to have more riders than any part of the system outside of SF downtown, including extension to Santa Clara county. If we can upzone everything in Geary corridor that could be the best answer to the housing situation.

  41. Posted by Dewayne

    For everyone saying “Geary should be first” or Geary makes more sense” of course that’s the most logical place to build a subway. However the issue is there has been vocal opposition to subway/light rail down Geary coming from the Richmond for years. They’ve had issues with the potential construction impacts that a subway would bring and also TOD and all the upzoning that would come with it. That’s why the 3rd st/Chinatown corridor was built first, both communities were behind the project.

  42. Posted by anon

    It should extend beyond Fisherman’s Wharf through the unused train tunnel to Fort Mason.

  43. Posted by Sam

    When was the last time a Geary subway was discussed? I thought it was when bart was first getting planned, no?

  44. Posted by Mark

    This time Futurist and I agree. Wow. Planet do align.
    Kidding aside, many of these comments refer to BART and Caltrain extensions and improvements which are not relevant to this story. Call BART and complain that the agency is wasting billions with a 1-station, 5+ mile extension to a huge car dependent park/ride Warm Springs/South Fremont station. Pick on Caltrain to get its act together about electrification which has been discussed for the past two decades with nothing to show.
    Back to the Central Subway. The machines are chipping away at the dirt so keep them moving to the wharf. Make the project worth the cost. As for landfill, so is the Embarcadero and the two-level station does just fine there. Keeping it underground between North Beach and the wharf is the better option than surface level because it improves operational efficiency and reduces travel time. Also, as we know riding the other surface lines, they are slow and prone to delays.
    As for the tourist comments…call me a 14-year resident tourist. I want to be able to get to parts of MY city as quickly as possible so I spend MY money locally and enjoy MY neighborhoods.

  45. Posted by the wolf

    OK. i get it now, but can we at least get this thing to Van Ness (just past the Wharf), so a future Bart line can run down Van Ness and connect to this.
    Bart down Geary would be a huge ecomonic boon for the city, and upzoning Geary is a no-brainer. Geary is now a retail POS. 5-7 stories along geary with the same + more retail on the 1st floor and 4-5 floors of apts/condos would be amazing.

  46. Posted by Hitman

    Will David Chiu ever stand up for something? he is afraid of Rose Pak

  47. Posted by james jr

    The extension to the wharf makes so much sense once you’re committed to the Central subway project.
    But I agree with PradoStreet’s list of priorities. BRT on Geary and Van Ness would benefit more San Franciscans.

  48. Posted by cfb

    “When was the last time a Geary subway was discussed? I thought it was when bart was first getting planned, no?” -Sam
    I’m pretty sure I remember some discussion about it around a decade ago. There was still opposition from people in the Richmond, such as merchants who were afraid that car traffic would be drastically reduced, which would lead to fewer people seeing their businesses from car windows, which would then lead to less business (never mind that in reality there would still be tons of cars, and that a subway would actually increase access and thus increase business). I think people were also worried that the construction itself could disrupt business. But disruption would be minimal unless a subway is built with the cut-and-cover method–which it probably wouldn’t be I’m guessing, seeing as the city has bad memories of cut-and-cover contributing to economic depression on mid-market during the construction of the market street subway.
    “Old people going to the hospital frequently and dying creates an economy? Wow, capitalism really is sad.” -sf
    Yes, because that’s all “healthcare” means, right? Old people dying! It’s not like anyone besides old people use hospitals or even live in SF! Everyone here is a senior citizen! And it’s not like anyone works at these hospitals! What a ridiculous idea! And it’s not like SF’s “healthcare” industry also includes such things as insurance providers and medical equipment/pharmaceutical providers (blue shield of CA,, McKesson corp., etc), and it’s not like there’s also an education/research connection as well (UCSF). It’s just old people dying! And it doesn’t properly contribute to the economy! Because I say so. Right.
    And it’s not like there’s anything else at all to SF’s economy! It’s not like there’s all these banks (wells fargo, bank of the west, bank of the orient, etc), government institutions (9th circuit court, federal reserve bank, multiple federal buildings, a US mint, etc), the largest engineering and construction company in America (Bechtel), or Nor Cal’s energy provider (PG&E), or tons of retail, etc, etc, in the city! It’s not like SF has an active cargo port (albeit a small one—but a lot of people fail to realize it exists at all). And it’s not like there are educational institutions contributing to the economy either (SFSU, CCSF, UCSF, USF, etc). And it’s not like there’s a booming tech industry here, with such companies like dolby, twitter and sales force, to name just a few of many.
    Welcome to San Francisco, where the only things that make money are tourists and old people dying!
    And that’s just the city-proper. In the the rest of the bay area we also have things like Chevron and several large oil refineries, the majority of the tech industry, the wine country, the ports of Oakland, Richmond, and redwood city, a bunch of other large companies like tesla, gillig corporation, visa, clorox, C&H sugar to name a few. I’m really just scratching the surface with all the companies I’ve listed in this post. The Bay Area even has one of the largest manufacturing sectors by employment in the united states (it was 5th largest as of 2010, if i remember right).
    Seriously, educate yourself on the economy (and demographics) of SF and the Bay Area, because it’s clear you don’t really know much about either. Like I said before, SF and the bay area as a whole actually has quite a diverse economy.

  49. Posted by curmudgeon

    may be late in the game, but Wolf questioned this because you can easily walk between north beach and fidi. That doesn’t matter…the issue is you can’t get from the entire CITY to north beach easily (by car, by walking, by transit)….this will open up access so much for normal SF folks (NOT just tourists). I’m sure some folks will be worried about that, but it will make me happier. Living in the Mission/Castro side of town for 20 years I often feel like North Beach is a foreign country, only because it is so damned annoying to get to.
    Come to think of it, I think I’ll take UberX there this weekend. THAT’s a pure side comment, but between biking more and ubering more, the City has really become much more accessible. But still…two thumbs up for extending the T.

  50. Posted by the wolf

    theres plenty of reasons not to go to North Beach. Its an island for me too, but I prefer to keep it that way. too many tourists. too many drunk bridge and tunnelers. too many strip bars. average to below average restaurants catering to tourists.
    The most annoying of all is the extreme drunkeness that occurs there. People used to have a lot more class, even while intoxicated

  51. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    From Market St to North Beach library is 1.2 miles, or 24 minute walk according to Google. It is walkable for some, but not an easy walk nor convenient. If 1.2 mile is an acceptable walking distance, then you only need to build 1 station on Powell St to reach the entire San Francisco downtown. Even Zynga in deep SOMA is just 1.3 miles away from Powell St. The entire MUNI problem is then solved!

  52. Posted by lol

    the wolf,
    If I sum up your opinion NB is a virtual 5 minute walk to the FiDi which doesn’t require a Muni stop and anyway you’d never go there. Another day on the internets.

  53. Posted by James

    They should extend it to Fisherman’s Wharf but eliminate the North Beach stop. If North Beach doesn’t want rail, just skip over them, but don’t hold other parts of the city hostage.

  54. Posted by Joseph A

    Ending the line at China Town is a mistake , it should reach the Wharf , and wish it went all the way either via under ground or surface to the Marina

  55. Posted by Sierrajeff

    People voicing support for this (and it sounds like the vast majority of people on here) need to contacts SFMTA and their Supervisor, and then join (and support) SF NexTstop. We can daydream all we want in comments sections, the only way things will happen (and NIMBYs be overcome) is if our voice is also heard.

  56. Posted by sf

    Don’t mistake all of North Beach with a couple of bitter Avon ladies with more money than brains. My guess would be that people of North Beach want rapid transit.. everybody complains how hard it is for people to get IN to NB, well, think about the people that live there that can’t get OUT because they are held hostage by the THD tin foil hat army.

  57. Posted by Mark

    If it went through the Marina to the Presidio, Lombard would be the route of choice. Since Van Ness is zoned for height, having a spur line from the wharf/aquatic park loop back south down to Market would be great as well to get more traffic off of Van Ness. (Sorry, I’m just not sold on the idea of BRT in this area.)

  58. Posted by Gregg

    An extension to Fisherman’s Wharf eventually does make sense. Does it make sense right now? Maybe not – I’d rather see subway lines run under Van Ness, which is a far busier corridor than the north end of Columbus, and would probably generate more fare revenue and eliminate a lot of bus traffic.
    As for extending it to the Marina, no way. What’s the point? I live in the Marina and I wouldn’t use it much – maybe to get to a Giants game from time to time. But as somebody pointed out, Marina residents have the 30 and 30X Muni lines to get downtown, and there are private shuttle services that do that route also. I think it’s well served. Spending a billion for maybe a thousand Marina residents that work downtown is a waste of money.
    Besides, a subway line would just dump more tourists in the Marina – it’s bad enough we have to deal with all the rental bikes, segway tours and those stupid little yellow tourist go-carts that always get lost on their way to the Golden Gate Bridge. I want to live in a real neighborhood, not in a plastic display case for tourists.

  59. Posted by cmak

    why aren’t SOMA and North Beach the “center” of anything on that map?
    SOMA: tech center
    North Beach: NIMBY center

  60. Posted by Mike Friedman

    The N has to take a minute at the tunnel entrance at Embarcadero because it’s hooking into the automatic train control system. The same reason as at West Portal (where you don’t notice because the train is stopped to board passengers) or at Duboce and church.
    Subway in the Marina is a very dicey proposition because it’s all landfill. Cow Hollow is not, but everything north of Lombard is.

  61. Posted by Mark

    @Gregg: sounds like you have a bit of the NIMBY blood in you. If you want the bay views without the Segway scooters then perhaps try Tiburon.
    Yes, the extension to the wharf needs to happen concurrently with the extension already under construction. Why? This corridor needs better transit for residents and tourists (which can be said for many areas in town). Also, the tunnel to North Beach is already under construction. If you think it will be expensive to extend the line to the wharf now, imagine the cost of digging up North Beach a second time to put in a station and continue the push to the bay.
    I also agree that Van Ness and Geary are due for major mass transit upgrades in the order of underground rail. The Geary merchants who oppose it have clearly not been on Irving St., West Portal or Ocean Ave., neighborhoods that are thriving…with rail.

  62. Posted by Sam

    Interesting, any plans to upgrade this? I have to imagine the problem isn’t even remotely insurmountable

  63. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    If the Fishy Wharf station is to be a subway station and it can’t be built on landfill, it has to be located over by Ghirardelli Square.

  64. Posted by woolie

    Build it to Ghirardelli Square. Then South under Van Ness to MSS.

  65. Posted by JWS

    @Gregg – I live in the Marina and would KILL for this subway to eventually end up there. I would use it at minimum once a week…Giants games, North Beach dining (at least every other week I’m out in North Beach), MOMA, Mid-Market, SOMA/Mission Bay dining…
    My biggest annoyance about the Marina is how difficult it is to get to other neighborhoods. I take the bus but its slow…Uber is expensive and adds up…
    100% behind the eventual move, if that’s the plan.

  66. Posted by Mark

    I’m sure the wharf station can be built underground. The proposed location at Conrad Square is the most ideal because of its central location between Pier 39 and Fort Mason.
    JWS does make a point about the Marina being isolated transit-wise from the rest of the city. A big problem is the location and the crazy bus routes that require at least one transfer regardless of direction (exception being the slow 22-Fillmore).

  67. Posted by James

    “Does it make sense right now?”
    Since the tunnel machines are already in the ground and digging, I would say yes, it does make sense right now. The cost of getting those things in & out of their holes isn’t cheap.

  68. Posted by fogmachine

    Agree w/@lol – above ground past Pier 39, through the existing tunnel to Ft Mason, and maybe at street level along the Marina Green to Crissy Field or the Presidio.

  69. Posted by Fishchum

    It needs to terminate after the Ft. Mason tunnel. If you think the Marina NIMBY’S made a stink about the old degaussing station being turned into a fish-n-shrimp shack, try proposing a MUNI line running down Crissy Field into the Presidio and see what happens.

  70. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Sam – the other problem at the Embarcadero portal is the N trains (which are becoming outboud N trains) have to mesh into the host of other underground trains already in the system – e.g., you’re sitting on the surface thinking “C’mon, what’s the holdup, we’re 200 yards from the station” – but underground, there may already be, say, a terminating inbound J and L, and in incoming inbound K, and maybe an M in one of the two turnaround tracks. So it’s not just a matter of your N switching to automatic control and proceeding; it has to “collate” with all those existing trains – and in such a manner and order as to keep the outbound underground lines operating with efficient spacing and variety.

  71. Posted by Sierrajeff

    ^^^ which, by the way, is one argument for keeping the T line underground all the way to Fisherman’s Wharf – not only are streetcars slower and prone to surface delays, but there’s the whole transition issue causing delays (even on a single-line route).

  72. Posted by Mark

    The Fort Mason tunnel is single track and will eventually be used for the F-line extension which better serves this area than LRVs.
    Keep it underground the entire way to the wharf. Otherwise, don’t even bother moving the line past North Beach (where there will be a tunnel regardless). I swear, in the year 2014, there are still so many people who think surface rail sharing crowded city streets is the best way to utilize transit funds and move people around the city. Have they ever ridden real transit systems? I’m not trying to be snarky, just practical. Speaking of underground…imagine how much faster the Market St. subway would run if it didn’t have 5 lines competing for rails.

  73. Posted by madWmoney

    If we are talking about proposed stops on the T line then I agree with some of the other remarks about having one near/at conrad square, although I actually think that location might even be a little too far from the wharf especially Pier 39. The line should then continue underground and stop somewhere near Ft. Mason and terminate (underground) somewhere near the Palace of Fine Arts. That is of course if SF really wanted pay for a tunnel to connect the Presidio to a grade separated transit system, which I have a hard time believing.
    Imagine how easy it would be to get to the Presidio or Crissy Field… tho it probably wouldn’t matter what the cost was cuz the NIMBYs would go crazy.

  74. Posted by Mark

    @mad: pros for the Conrad Square location are its proximity to all of the area between Fort Mason and Pier 39, easier transfer connections to major bus lines, and enticing for more residents to use. Having any extension terminate before entering the Presidio and sidestep Lombard St. (easy walking distance to Union and Chestnut) isn’t really putting good money to use here. There is always the option to have a line branch off the T between North Beach and Fish Wharf, run under Lombard with stations at Fillmore, Lombard Gate/Palace of Fine Arts and Presidio Main Post, but I’m not certain ridership would justify the cost, but that depends on development within the Presidio itself.
    Just sayin’…

  75. Posted by the wolf

    its nice that the Marina is isolated. Its what has allowed it to stay one of the nicest neighborhoods. And for God’s sake, dont ruin the presidio and chrissy field by bringing more people there.

  76. Posted by Sierrajeff

    ^^^ Ha, Frat Mason, and the yuppie yoga-pants-wearing narcissist-fest that is the Marina “one of the nicest neighborhoods”? You need to get out more – I’ll take Irving Street in the Inner Sunset, or Fillmore Street, or North Beach, over the Marina any day.
    @Mark – the original Market Street plan in the 1940s was to have 4 tracks – 2 for local, and 2 for express. Oh if they had only done that… I actually tend to be a Muni defender, at least with respect to the Market Street underground, because it’s pretty amazing that integrating all those lines works as often as it does.

  77. Posted by Fishchum

    I don’t [know] which is more tiring – the constant bashing of the Marina or the Mission based on the stereotypes of each neighborhood.

  78. Posted by THD member

    Most of us THD types have been here long enough to look both back and forward and predict the future with ease. Subway out Geary is the only route that makes sense and could improve lives of both residents and tourists. Current routing plans are too expensive and disruptive; planners have to race to raise the money to keep up with need to pay out of town construction workers and local consultants. Leave North Beach alone and leave Fisherman’s Wharf to the tourists who will find it whatever you do.

  79. Posted by Fishchum

    More self-serving selfishness from the THD. What a surprise.
    “Screw the rest of The City, it’s all about us!”
    You guys should make that the official THD motto.

  80. Posted by the wolf

    “”^^^ Ha, Frat Mason, and the yuppie yoga-pants-wearing narcissist-fest that is the Marina “one of the nicest neighborhoods”? You need to get out more – I’ll take Irving Street in the Inner Sunset, or Fillmore Street, or North Beach, over the Marina any day.””
    Another way to look at it is the most educated part of the city. Most of the Marina is 35yo+ and definitely highest p% of Ivy league graduates in the city.
    For me diversity is not about the way you look. Its about the way you think. I dont care if everyone wears beige pants and plaid shirts. there are a lot of smart people and diverse in thought. wheras the mission is diverse in dress attire and monochromatic in thought

  81. Posted by anon94123

    The Marina bashing by some here is bizarre. I think it all goes back to some strange San Francisco attitude that a neighborhood has to be dirty to be “urban”. The reality is that the Marina has the type of density I enjoy with mostly 4 story apartment/condo buildings with about 20% single family homes many built as townhouses. To listen to some lecture us about how other neighborhoods are more “real” is beyond boring, especially as many of those neighborhoods are at least 80% single family homes with a bunch of garage doors lining the streets, which spells suburbia to me.
    I will take the European density and ease of walking and close proximity to waterfront here in the Marina instead of some other parts of town that are being “discovered” mainly because they are close to freeways.

  82. Posted by Jill

    Agree Marina still nicest neighborhood. So close to wAter, Chrissy field , Marin/Mt Tam, GGB, and presidio, places to run, hike, bike, dog friendly, more educated residents, less homeless, good density, fewer hipsters
    QOL better, but def expensive

  83. Posted by Dan

    The Marina is near the beauty of Chrissy Field and the Presidio, and is an attractive neighborhood, for sure. The “highest percentage of Ivy grads” claim is a bit strange. The tech folks (who mostly live further south) tend to be quite educated, and, as an Ivy grad myself, I’m just as happy living next to people who graduated Berkeley or SF State. The Marina is one of the wealthiest and least ethnically diverse neighborhoods (though Noe Valley is close), but that doesn’t make a neighborhood superior in my book.
    It is an inconvenient place to live if one’s work and social network is further south.

  84. Posted by Ken

    So… any update on this? There’s no mention of any “feasibility study” in the minutes for the March Transportation Authority Board meeting.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles