While the 5.4-acre rooftop park atop San Francisco’s future Transbay/Salesforce Transit Center is on track to be fully planted, landscaped and construction complete in June, the timing to complete the $2.3 billion building below has slipped anew.

Originally expected to be substantially complete at the end of 2017, the substantial completion date for the Transit Center building, which doesn’t include final inspections and corrections, has been pushed back to June as well.

And as such, it’s now looking like a late third-quarter opening for the Salesforce Transit Center, at the earliest and not including any future train services.

98 thoughts on “Timing for San Francisco’s Transit Center Pushed Back”
  1. Whatever – it’s a massive project and will be well worth the wait. These kinds of daring structures are dramatically changing our skyline for the better.

  2. I cannot wait to go up to that park. This thing is amazing. So worth it. The trains will come. Maybe bypass the trains straight for the hyperloop. Either way its moving along.

      1. Agree completely. double F the haters and armchair critics.

        This is an outstanding project. It’s NOT the High-line nor ever intended to be.

        The trains will come. People will flock to the park.

        1. Agreed. It all all get built in time. I am very happy to see my property tax dollars go into this project.

      1. It’s a bus terminal and always has been (Muni, SamTrans, GG Transit, AC Transit, Amtrak, Greyhound). When HSR comes in it will also be a rail terminal.

      1. It will take at least 50 years to develop Hyperloop into a safe mode of transportation and then build it – it is unlikely that I will be around to say “I told you so”

        1. You won’t. I won’t. But at least we leave the next generation in a better state than the previous one.

          1. That would be the goal – but I wouldn’t postpone investment in HSR to wait for a hyperloop that may or may not be possible. In addition, the models I have read about has very small capacity so it would be like investing in the Concorde.

    1. References to the “hyperloop” are the Godwin’s Law of the planning community. If you seriously think we should plan and build for a tech that hasn’t even been penciled out yet – let alone prototyped, tested, etc. – then you aren’t rationally contributing to the debate.

      1. its gonna happen, it would be huge failure of humanity if this doesnt happen. its going to happen.

  3. The photo of the rooftop park looks fantastic; however, I fear it will quickly become overtaken by the seedier side of San Francisco’s street people.

    1. It most definitely WILL get dirty. Have you seen the before/after shots of the Embarcadero BART station? Wowzers.

      1. Hardly comparable: the EBS is underground, enclosed, protected from the elements – the non-human ones anyway – so it’s much less…oh wait…

  4. Seriously people think this building is a “win?” I’m sorry but its a disgrace. I have walked its perimeter every few months since day 1 and try as I might I cannot get past its many deep flaws.

    1) Its jammed into the space, which means at street level its foreboding and dark.

    2) Agreeing with Eddy above, the white perforated panels (which were sort of a new thing when announced as a cost saving move) are a cheap concealment device that I now see everywhere. They are very popular for hiding dumpsters behind commercial buildings, for instance. Here they look like a sort of Mission Bay Kaiser parking garage.

    3) The roof garden lacks the spontaneity and whimsy of its supposed model, the high line. Its not an urban amenity — its like the upper deck of a huge, tacky cruise ship.

    In summary, the building is a failure not just in its mission but in its physical presence. Its the Metreon on steroids and I think it will be decades, just as with the Metreon, before people can get their heads around a fix (and maybe a Target store for the vast and mostly un-leased retail space) to make it work.

    1. Is it even possible to take a bigger dump on this design? We’ll never have a high line in this city, so this is a darn close second.

      1. You could have very easily had one … a mini one anyway: simply leave the existing (eastern) elevated structure up and construct a new entry/exit approach on the west. But they chose instead to replace the former with new buildings – a logical, easily defendable choice – and the rest of the complex with this – an idiotic and undefendable choice.

        MHO is , if a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then this is what a camel designed by a committee looks like.

      2. We SHOULD never see a high line in this city because that would be lame me-too-ism. Beneath us. Ours would be a “low line” — along the great right-of-ways of railroad track, criss-crossing from Mission Creek to 24th street to the Embarcadero and beyond. A street level paradise of walkways and bikeways. Emeryville and Berkeley are doing it. But here in SF that notion (long lobbied for by actual caring fans of this beautiful city -versus our Ayn Rand arriviste profiteers) is downgraded in favor of the Scott Wiener vision of ‘money in his pocket’ …ugly triangle infill high turnover condos with rooms shaped like SFMTA bulb-outs.

      3. I’ve been on the High Line in NYC. The highline line is 1.4 miles long and an incredible asset to NYC. This is no high line. This is a tacky forced park which will render the street level dark, forbidding, and useless. This roof park is too wide and lacks any kind of character. The highline is a narrow strip which does not overpower the neighborhood and features sunshine, views, along with historic and modern buildings of every height and type. The flawed and hugely expensive change order of bringing HSR up the Peninsula and into dead end a cul-de-sac at the end of a Peninsula in downtown SF, will ultimately doom HSR. The original and much less expensive plan was to bring HSR through the Altamont Pass to 12th Street/City Center BART in Oakland to link it with the nexus of the BART system and then send it on its way to Sacramento. Unfortunately SF politicians and business leaders wanted a trophy station for SF and along with SJ interests derailed the best route for the entire Bay Area.

        1. I agree the Altamont route was better but its rejection was not due to SF “trophy station” interests. Bridging/tunneling the bay is an even harder political problem than Atherton NIMBYs. Or are you opposed to the idea of HSR to the City entirely?

          1. There really is no need to go all the way to downtown SF due to the prohibited expense. It’s only 12 minutes from the Oakland City Center Station to Embarcadero Station in SF. The train should come through the Altamont Pass through the Trivalley and all the way to DTO to link with all lines of the BART system. It can then proceed north on the Amtrak right of way to Sacramento.

          2. Most people will be heading to SF or SV as their destination, not Oakland. So then you will have to put them on already crowded connections – at least I have seen many comments here that the BART connection to SF is bad – or build an additional tunnel with lots of controversy and expense. Anyway, nobody are seriously considering HSR to Oakland.

          3. Oakland is only the geographic center of the Bay Area and the capital of the 2.7 million resident East Bay region. Oakland also has the fourth busiest airport in California with the third most destinations to Europe. Also the Port of Oakland is an economic engine for the Bay and the 5th biggest Port in the United States. Don’t forget that Oakland also boast a redwood forest 5 miles from downtown along with the best zoo in Northern California, better theaters than SF and two lovely waterfronts consisting of Lake Merritt and Jack London Square. Oakland also has 85,000 office workers in it’s downtown compared to 40,000 in downtown San Jose. Over all, there are 220,000 jobs in Oakland. DTO is also becoming a haven for high density residential highrises. There are just under 7,000 residential units currently under construction in Oakland. Please inform yourselves about Oakland before dismissing and denigrating a great Bay Area city.

    2. Good points. The one saving grace is that the two mid-rise buildings just beyond 181 will provide a break for light and open space. And hopefully prevent the park from becoming a wind tunnel. Speaking of jammed in, that photo sure give one such a feel with the towers almost foreboding in their hulking over of the park.

      Insofar as it’s supposed function as a terminus for HSR – don’t hold your breath. One of the fixes in coming decades may be to figure out a way to creatively use the underground box. Swimming pools? Bowling alleys? Subterranean shopping? It could become an SF feature!

    3. I don’t want to agree with you, but I sort of do. the design already looks dated/tacky.

      that said, it will still be pretty cool 🙂

      lots of metreon parallels.

        1. tacky = cheap, slapdash… like all those new stucco facades that are already dirty, mildewing, flaking paint, etc. Look great in renderings and ribbon-cuttings, but fall to sh*t pretty quickly.

          dated = see any number of “cool new” design ideas that we look at now and wonder how they were ever drawn, let alone built – all those godawful 1970s apartment buildings in the Richmond and Sunset, for instance.

          You may disagree with u/unlivable city’s views, but I think the terms are pretty commonly used and understandable.

    4. High Line will be seen as a barebones bore in comparison. Highly overrated — not worth a third look.

      1. The 1.43 mile long High Line in NYC is far superior to this 5 acre roof park. There really is no comparison.

    5. Thankfully, we don’t have projects designed by amateur armchair critics like you, but rather world class, ultra talented and experienced firms like Clark Pelli Clark and the myriad of outstanding consultants to bring this project to fruition.

      This is an outstanding project and is a great addition to downtown San Francisco.

      1. We were waiting for your “armchair critic” comment to appear. Sure enough.

        The whole idea of a park is fine, but you cannot tell me that it’s going to live up to all the promises we were sold regardless of the A List designers who were involved. It goes beyond aesthetics (which is subjective anyway).

        1. That’s not even a real critique. Calling people out for maliciously representing their loudmouthed opinions as gospel is both valid and completely necessary.

    6. 1) The fact that “Its jammed into the space” makes the rooftop park dramatic and exceptional. The High Line is also jammed into its space, which is central, among other factors, to its dramatic appeal. Ditto, even more dramatically: the day-lighted and hugely popular Cheonggyecheon Stream in Seoul and the miraculously preserved and beloved small parks of Manhattan, e.g., Madison Square and Union Square, which are surrounded by towers. This is a long list.

      2) Well, perfect is the enemy of good. Yes, the panels were changed as a cost-saving measure, but have you truly seen these custom forms “everywhere”? As for the pattern, maybe they’re much replicated, but I haven’t noticed it anywhere else. Perforated metal: Yes. This particular pattern: Where else? If it’s perforated metal you object to because you see it everywhere, then I wonder if you also object to the stone facing seen everywhere in pre-war commercial buildings or painted wood seen everywhere in Victorian houses or glass skins seen everywhere on contemporary buildings. This is a thin reed of objection, I think.

      3) The garden lacks whimsy? I don’t follow; evidently you and I have different definitions of “whimsy.” And I disagree that it looks like the “upper deck of a huge, tacky cruise ship,” but if you’re right, maybe we should be cheered because this probably bodes well for the future popularity of the park given the popularity of huge, tacky cruise ships.

      1. The High Line was *not* “jammed into its space” when it opened – part of the appeal was walking above everything.

        On a visit last summer – as compared to several years ago – it was striking how different it feels now that NYC has let multiple tall buildings be built right up against the High Line. From open-air dais, it’s become a closed in, I’m-being-watched-from-above alley.

        1. That’s mostly the part next to the huge Hudson Yards development. Most of the High Line is open and has sunlight.

    7. You are not an expert. Your opinions are not facts. Things are not constructed with pleasing you personally in mind. Your attitude is a textbook example of selfish obstructionism because you think planning revolves around you.

      For once, just once, pretend like you aren’t the center of the universe. I for one and many, many others like it. That’s my OPINION.

    8. “In summary, the building is a failure not just in its mission but in its physical presence.”

      What is your FACTUAL basis for this? Until the rail connection is formally cancelled or the building collapses or is otherwise structurally deficient, you can’t make these claims and expect for them to be treated as valid.

    9. A little premature with your assessment, Unlivable. I can hear that you don’t like it, but let’s wait until it’s done before you tell us it’s a failure.

  5. The rooftop garden when it opens will be amazing – it will have hundreds of trees that have been curated from around the world – interesting choices and specimens that will make it a kind of arboretum in the financial district. What I worry is whether those plants and trees will still look as good in a year or two or three – planted above ground with less than the normal amount of soil that a tree would have at ground level.

    1. Take a look at the palms along the Embarcadero and upper Market St. or any large tree jammed into a container for several years. Let’s see how well they are maintained.

  6. Shame that the bus ramps aren’t threaded like BART tracks feeding into SFO, but instead rely on an old fashioned traffic light.

    Also, I gotta hand it to people for hiding the bus storage ramps under existing ramps.

  7. You can’t compare this with the high line. Sorry. Too different cities. Two different structures. Two different purposes. Now back to this…

    I couldn’t care less about the perforated panels getting grimy. Glass would too. The beef I have is that people think this is some kind of “daring” structure. It’s not. It’s just an elevated park-like structure on top of a bus station. “Trains will come.” (And I’ve got a bridge to sell you.) “Hyperloop?” Seriously? SF can’t even get rail extended to its daring transit center to create, well, a transit center. Truly sad.

      1. If the grime is wet then it doesn’t matter if it’s glass or perforated metal…it’s going to drip regardless.

  8. The delay isn’t a big deal; the temporary terminal is quite sufficient at 1/4 the footprint. As for the park, it’s a nice feature but it’s like saying the cheese is your favorite part of a burger. Faint praise.

    1. The temporary terminal adds 20 minutes to every round trip, which is why every delay to the real terminal is a setback to bus riders. The only people who think the temporary terminal is sufficient are people who don’t actually use it.

      1. You are correct, but this massive Grand Central Station of the West makes little economic sense. Especially as I expect HSR to be abandoned.

        1. Exactly. Unlike say Union Station in LA. HSR will, if not abandoned, be scaled back. Perhaps terminating in SJ. If it does “build through” it will terminate in Oakland because of the large cost savings in not having to come up the Peninsula.

          1. It’s hard to say that something will never happen – but HSR to Oakland will NEVER, EVER happen! If HSR makes it through the Pacheco pass, it will probably connect to SF in some form, but the speed will likely be reduced from other sections.
            Amtrak has trains from Central Valley going to Oakland, so that will have to do.

          2. Thinking to the possibility being discussed of an HSR up the West Coast from LA to Seattle, the Peninsula connection becomes untenable. HSR coming up the Peninsula to the TTC would then have to further tunnel under the Bay to connect to an HSR line coming down from Portland. And, as you note, the speeds will likely be reduced for the sections from SJ and up the Peninsula. Allowing for the possibility, however far off, of HSR from LA to Seattle the Peninsula link makes no sense at all. BTW, Portland is planning a massive development of the area around the old UPS center and Union Station. Built around an HSR hub. HSR recently opened between Seattle and Portland. In the same context, Oakland provides the potential of a great Union Station type complex. BART, AMTRAK, HSR, buses and all. It may never happen but it might and, to that end, placing the HSR terminus in Oakland is logical and the best decision to accommodate future possibilities.

          3. As planned the California HSR phase II would connect Sacramento to the San Joaquin Valley. From there you could continue to Redding, Eugene and Portland, but you better find a really cheap way to build tracks since it is a very long stretch with very little population (cost would be how many multiples of the track up the peninsula?) – it would be after connections to San Diego and Las Vegas, so maybe next century?
            The thing is that as soon as you go outside the east bay, nobody wants to go to Oakland – it’s not a destination.

          4. The improvements to the tracks were initiated last year. The first step towards high speed, it was the initial improvement of 14.5 miles of new and upgraded track that shaves 20 minutes off the three-hour, 40-minute Seattle-Portland run. As more of the track is upgraded that runtime will continue to drop.

            Unfortunately, a derailment last year killed several. It was one of the first runs on the new stretch of track.

            Ultimately the plan is 110 MPH. Lately, efforts are picking up on a Vancouver, Seattle, Portland bullet train. If that happens, in the distant future, that bullet train will undoubtedly connect to Cali. Through Oakland and SJ and onto SoCal.

          5. There is no doubt that neither of us will live long enough to see HSR to Oakland.

            The new business plan was just released, and from the highlights it looks like they are aiming for San Francisco to Gilroy and Bakersfield to Madera connections – with no promises about tunneling on a time table. I doubt that the SF TC is in the report, but hopefully it will remain in the plan – that is how the HSR can get an advantage over short haul airlines: taking people where they want to go.

          6. Given the new plan it is clear that HSR, wherever it goes or not, will not go to the TTC. The massive infrastructure spending Trump is proposing – with the GOP balking and the Dems on board but just for more, could be a key. HSR is way over budget. And failing – let’s be honest.

            If the Feds came in and said billions would be allocated but only for the most cost effective plan as in drop the Peninsula link and go for the obvious cost effective choice – up the East Bay to Oakland would you support shifting the terminus from the TTC to a new Oakland Union Station type hub?

          7. The idea of HSR terminating in Oakland is absurd.

            The entire premise of HSR is to take people in SoCal to where they want to go in NorCal and vice versa. Nobody–and I do mean nobody–from SoCal wants to go to Oakland, they want to go to San Francisco (or maybe San Jose). Terminating in Oakland would make it far less convenient for someone to go from LA to SF, and ridership would suffer drastically–the planners knew this, which is why Oakland was never going to be the terminus.

            Even with the current optimistic ridership projections it might end up being abandoned–if ridership drops in half due to an Oakland terminus you know it’s not going to pencil out and the project dies for sure. Besides, if you’re looking to save money by dumping passengers off somewhere they don’t actually want to go, then why not just make Pleasanton or Pittsburg/Bay Point the Bay Area terminus and save millions of dollars?!

          8. I have to agree with Gillian – nobody wants to go to Oakland other than Raiders fans, and they only go for football games and head back out. People from this part of the state goes to SF for specialized medical treatment (in competition with Stanford and UCLA) or they go to SF on business (finance, legal), or cultural events like music, theater or just to check out unique restaurants. Who goes to Oakland? Why go to Oakland – nothing there that isn’t somewhere closer to home. There is already trains to Oakland, and if they continued to SF more people would ride them. Amtrak and BART need to work together on that.

          9. The people here bashing Oakland as the natural terminus for HSR are wrong. The nexus of the BART system is Oakland as is the nexus of our freeway system. Connecting to the 12th Street/City Center BART Station would place passengers a 10 minute BART ride from downtown SF. Oakland is already the cultural and arts center of the Bay Area with great restaurants and opulent theaters like the Fox. Paramount, and Grand Lake. HSR to Downtown Oakland would connect Sounthern California with the entire Bay Area. Sending HSR up the Peninsula into SF is a huge waste of money. Oakland to Anaheim is where families want to go.

          10. The entire premise of downtown SF to downtown LA as destination is wrong. Who wants to go to downtown LA? People want to go to Disneyland, Santa Monica or Venice Beach. People want to come to the Bay Area including Napa, Oakland, Berkeley, Silicon Valley and SF. This is HSR meant to connect Southern California with the Bay Area. This SF to LA thing is unnecessary. Oakland to Disneyland would be huge. We can call the Oakland station the Oakland/SF terminus or the “Bay Area” Station.

          11. It takes 31 minutes by subway to connect HSR downtown LA station to Hollywood and people are complaining about a 12 minute BART ride from Oakland City Center BART to the Embarcadero Station in SF? This “no one wants to go to Oakland” argument is based on misinformation and a false image. Downtown Oakland would be a great central Bay Area location for HSR and much closer to SF than the downtown LA Station would be to Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica or Disneyland. Besides Downtown Oakland with Uptown, Chinatown, JLS, Old Oakland and Lake Merritt is far more vibrant than downtown LA.

          12. “people are complaining about a 12 minute BART ride from Oakland City Center BART to the Embarcadero Station in SF?”

            Sorry, I should have known that you would read this. Ask around the nation and the world where people want to go in CA and you will get Disney Land, Yosemite, San Francisco, Hollywood – and secondary you will hear Napa, Monterey/Pebble Beach, San Diego/Sea World, Sequoya National Park, Redwoods Park etc.

            Business people will travel to San Francisco, Silicon Valley, San Diego, Los Angeles.

            Nobody will mention Oakland as a designation, but as they arrive in San Francisco’s Transit Center they can take BART to Oakland, should they feel the need. You may think that we are bashing Oakland, but that is not the intent – just letting you know how people from outside the Bay Area perceive the city. Walnut Creek gets higher marks. Terminating HSR in Oakland is terminating any chance of HSR being successful.

          13. How do you know what “people think” about Oakland? And that “Walnut Creek gets high marks?” I’ve been to downtown LA and I can tell you that downtown Oakland is fall livelier with all the restaurants in Uptown, Chinatown, Old Oakland, City Center, Jack London Square, and Lake Merritt. Not to mention opulent theaters like the Fox, Paramount, and Grand Lake.

          14. Typical SF snobs. You can keep your little mecca of filthy streets, crumbling infrastructure, homeless/drug addicts/etc. Poll any tourist who comes here…they are shocked at the filth. Definitely not what they saw in the brochure or on Full House reruns.

            Funny how no one wanted to go to Brooklyn in the 90s. Now you can’t real estate there. Same for Oakland.

          15. Yes, SF has lots of faults as well, but still ranks way above Oakland. I don’t live in either city, and have no desire to, but if I travel to one or the other for business or pleasure it is going to be SF any day.

          16. no one wants to go to oakland. oakland is very little of bay area economy. even though San Jose further from SF, even that makes more sense than oakland. need to go where population center, cultureal center or jobs center is. oakland is crime center, but none of the other centers

          17. San Francisco is actually the crime center with an average of about 60,000 crimes within its 49 square miles compared to about 30,000 yearly crimes in Oakland’s 57 square miles. SF also had 30,000 auto break-ins in 2017 compared to 9,000 in Oakland. SF also had 700 more violent crimes than Oakland in 2017.

          18. E.Gonsalves, I thought we went over this already. You can’t just quote crimes per square mile, you have to discuss crimes per thousand (or 100,000) members of the population. Crimes are committed by people, not hectares.

          19. Crime is bad in SF, but still takes a backseat to Oakland. Just check the FBI statistics that are reported by most news outlets. Looks like Fremont is the place to be, or the Sacramento suburbs.

          20. The SF/Oakland bickering is pointless and ultimately hurts the Bay Area insofar as issues are not addressed regionally. Think transportation and housing distribution. Other metros are way ahead of the Bay Area in this area and it will come back to hurt SF/Oakland/the Bay Area as a whole.

            BTW, IIRC the port of Oakland is number 8 now. It has been hurt by growth at LA/Long Beach and SeaTac. SeaTac being 1 day closer to Asia by ship and LA being the gateway to a massive and much larger population that the Bay Area. Beyond that, with the expansion of the Canal to handle super-ships, the West Coast will lose share to East Coast ports over the coming years. Especially as those ports deepen their channels. The Port of Virginia, for instance, has surpassed Oakland in tonnage handled.

          21. Sorry but the prevalence and number of crime in an area tells you more about the safety of the area than the number of people living above the street diluting the crime rate. There is 2x the amount of crime in a smaller land mass than in Oakland. Therefore the 49 square miles of SF are far more crime ridden than the 57 square miles in Oakland. So in essence SF is much more crime ridden than SF. When someone buys a home they look at the number of crimes in a certain time frame in their street or neighborhood. No one ever asks “what’s the crime per capita on my street.”

          22. Tho I’d love to see a discussion on whether/not “cheese makes the burger”, I’m pretty sure neither Oakland nor SF’s crime rate(s) – be they measured per capita, per block or per parsec – will affect the opening of this bus terminal, so back to now back to that topic…

  9. A couple of people have expressed concerns about dirty panels and trees that might not grow right. Both symptoms of poor maintenance, something that San Francisco public infrastructure has been famous for historically.

    Take the Embarcadero roadway: $1 million was set aside per year specifically for maintenance, and yet it looks awful. Light standards with missing pieces and faded paint. Public art broken within a couple of years (the lighted glass block strand; the light towers in front of the Ferry Building) and never fixed. And of course filthy streets, parks, and plazas.

    The exterior panels should be easily cleanable, but probably won’t be. The maintenance “nut” on this BusmaHal is huge, and has to be subsidized every year. Won’t be long till that budget’s cut to the bone.

  10. I have known San Francisco 52 years, sadly there is a on going failure to provide serious sanitation and lodging for the thousands of indigents who come from everywhere. Within a year the park will be empty after one murder and several rapes. Good intentions flawed reasoning. Most white collar workers won’t chance the place.

  11. I sure hope that park will be closed from 10 pm to 6 am to avoid becoming a homeless encampment. Also, Salesforce and 181 Fremont HOA should throw in a private patrol to ensure a safe environment. If you ever have been attacked by a crazy on meth (like my wife out with the stroller in GGP) that’s high on the wish list… in SF you can’t rely on the city government for safety.

    1. I think it will turn out better than you think. I suspect the park will be managed by the transbay joint powers authority, not the city.

      If so, it will be similar to the Yerba Buena Gardens model, which is managed by the redevelopment agency, who doesn’t have their hands tied by the SF progressives when it comes to the homeless. The redevelopment agency absolutely kicks homeless out of there on the regular, with an iron fist, and maintains the place to the highest standards for the Moscone visiting tourists.

      YBG is beautiful and safe, even at night. If you get the chance to see it at night, head back from Mission Street, where it just looks like a plain park, to the water feature. It’s lit up and quite nice at night. There’s constant security and not a homeless person around. They do not screw around like the city does.

      Target does the same thing with respect to the homeless. I’ve seen them literally pick up the homeless people and drag them out of the store as soon as they make it to the top of the escalator. Two guards grab each arm and lift the person around to the down escalator, screaming the whole time, where they are carried out the front door and unceremoniously dumped onto the sidewalk.

      I suspect this park will initially be overrun, until the TJPA learns their lesson.

  12. if the roof park is managed like the Yerba Buena Gardens that would be a step in the right direction. there should be a zero tolerance policy for loitering, camping, littering, pooping, pissing, drugging. sorry for mentioning all this, but it’s reality in SF, sadly

    1. Definition of loiter
      intransitive verb
      2 a : to remain in an area for no obvious reason

      Yeah, you def want to prohibit that in a park.

  13. I find it funny that the City Supes consistently demand that the SF employee’s retirement fund rid itself of all petroleum based investments, yet we spend millions to replace a terminal designed for passenger travel by petrol buses.

    1. Social agendas rarely make good investment or money. Maybe the feel more secure in buying Tesla stock.

  14. If I want to ride HSR, easier to hop on the plane and travel to Asia to do it. Same if I want to avoid homeless, drug addicts, and mentally ill people running around on the streets.

Leave a Reply

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