Transit Miami did it for Miami, M1ek did it for Austin, Christof did it for Houston, and the Transit Coalition has lots of maps on possible LA scenarios so I thought maybe i would throw my hat in the ring.
Above is my dream map of San Francisco. Black lines are existing and colors are not. The northern most green line would be an extension of the F line. It would also serve as a piece of the Van Ness blue line subway. The reason it wouldn't be a surface line is that that street is way too busy as it is and being the main 101 freeway route to the Golden Gate the line should be underground.
The red elbow is the central subway thats under planning right now. However it should be extended to the orange line into the Marina district. The indigo line goes north south to connect lines and the Richmond district with the San Francisco State. And finally the bottom red line connector would meet up the Geneva rail yards with the end of the 3rd street light rail that just opened up. These are my dream routes to expand an already pretty good rail transit system. I hope they do the blue, yellow and orange lines first because those are the ones i would use the most! Anyone else have dreams?
4 comments:
I was just referring to drawing maps, not the dream map aspect. Although maybe you should do that...put together something exciting!
My own thought on San Francisco:
Even in a place where local politics favor it, building subways is a very slow proposition. How many years will be from when the Central Subway was proposed to when it will be finished?
So forget that. 1/2 of San Franciscans don't have a car. They are entitled to 1/2 of the street right-of-way.
Build street-running light rail, with reserved lanes and grade separations (underpasses)where needed at some major intersections and junctions, and you can get a lot more built more quickly. Why not a surface route for the Central Subway, open in 4 years, at the same time as Geary light rail and Van Ness light rail and Marina F-line? That's possible with funding that's already lined up.
I also think you missed a line: a T-Third spur to Hunters Point and Candlestick, to create a new transit-oriented neighborhood.
Thanks for the comments Christof. I agree with the line to Candlestick. If we didn't give up the 49ers to Santa Clara that would have been the Olympic Village and Stadium...and it would have had a LRT spur. The 49ers are not on my good list right now.
As for the subways. I think you're right to a certain degree. I don't think surface LRT on Sacramento to Broadway is efficient. The grid system of streets is so good that the line would go too slow. Also there are just too many people on a narrow street just walking in Chinatown, not even auto traffic. I always have to walk on the street down there to avoid running into people.
For Geary, i think the line should be a subway out to Masonic. The 38 and 38L have their own lanes and are still packed and slow. I don't see surface LRT on that street being any different. However the line should pop up on the surface to the sea after Masonic street.
The only other line i think should be underground should be Van Ness North of the freeway. This line and the Geary line are going to be made into dedicated lane BRT soon and then transfered to Subways. At least thats what the long range plan says.
The rest of my lines are surface LRT including the F-Line extension which already has a tunnel to use from a previous abandoned line under Fort Mason.
The City is so dense downtown, for time savings as proven by the Market Street Subway, subway is the way to go. But thats my opinion.
Post a Comment