From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Summary: Light rail on Geary makes sense.
Keywords: SkyTrain Geary light rail San Francisco Muni Metro elevated
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:49:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <p9l0pjc@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>
>You might be right.  I was thinking of an elevated system (which could
>actually be a tourist attraction, too) down the middle of Geary.  They
>might lose a lane in each direction, though.  A surface system doesn't
>seem worth it.  It wouldn't be any faster than the current A/B/Limited
>bus network.

I think it's safe to say that there is never, ever, ever going 
to be an elevated *anything* in San Francisco.  Residents fought 
long and hard to eliminate the elevated freeways: the Central 
Freeway, the Embarcadero Freeway, and all the other freeways that 
once dotted the State Highway Plan and are now in a condition of 
nonexistence.  Residents have been successful in eliminating 
those parts of the freeways that are currently damaged from the 
earthquake -- the whole Embarcadero Freeway, a portion of the 
Central Freeway.  An elevated train would be fought tooth and 
nail.  It will not happen. 

(I suppose it is vaguely possible that an elevated train might be
built in industrial districts where there are few residents to
complain that their neighborhood life will be disrupted.  That's why
nobody's asking that I-280 be torn down.  In other words, I suppose
it's possible that an aerial CalTrain extension be approved to the
Transbay Terminal -- but it could never happen north of Market, or in
the heavily-populated Richmond district.)
 
>A surface system doesn't seem worth it.  It wouldn't be any faster 
>than the current A/B/Limited bus network.
 
I disagree.  I assume a light-rail system would form a 
38L replacement, with stations such as those on the Santa Clara 
LRT near where the current 38L stops.  The current 38L has to 
fight with traffic and weave in and out of lanes.  Any light rail 
corridor replacement would by necessity create a new exclusive 
MUNI right of way; this would eliminate this weaving, thus 
creating a faster trip.  (This is a reason, of course, not to do 
it.)  But the main reason for putting rail on Geary is higher 
capacity, not speed.  Even the very large articulated buses can 
be very crowded on Geary. 
 
>In article <17um80INNhi2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>> 
>> Well, there's room underground for *lots* of things, just depends on
>> how deep you go. :)  I don't know what you mean by "small cabin" --
>> SkyTrain cars are about as big as your average bus, if I remember
>> correctly; it's been a while.  I think a regular light rail line makes
>> more sense on Geary; there is room there and it wouldn't be as
>> expensive as a fully-separated line would be.
>
 
In article <p9pn69k@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
 
>Light rail might be cheaper to build, but it would also be slower and
>more expensive to run.  There is also no place for it without stealing
>a couple of lanes (or running it in the traffic lanes which would be
>really awful). 
   
I think it's a given that a Geary LRT would take a couple of 
lanes from auto traffic.  I don't know how this would go down 
with the community.  An lot of people there take transit compared 
with suburb areas, which might make the community actually 
positive toward it.
 
>Even with its own lane, it would still stop for traffic
>lights, and they would be unable to run limited stop service.  Unless
>it became the limited stop service, in which case they would still
>need local buses, in which case it seems like a lot of capital for
>service that is little if any better than today's (worse in some ways).
 
It would have to become the limited stop service; but I think you 
underestimate the difference between rail transit and bus 
transit.  Muni is going to a proof-of-payment system on the Metro 
cars.  (This is from their 1991-2000 capital plan.)  That means 
that they will be able to hook several cars together with only 
one driver, and people will be able to enter and exit from all 
the doors.  This gives a much higher capacity *and* faster time 
in stops (because there will be more entrances), with one driver, 
just like a single bus.
 
Moreover, most of the streetlights on Geary are rather long (that 
is, Geary gets a much longer green than the crossstreets) so 
that it wouldn't be too much of a burden to auto traffic to have 
signal pre-emption (where a remote control in the light rail car 
controls the traffic lights).
 
There would still have to be local bus service for the elderly 
and others who cannot easily walk the few blocks to the LRT 
stations (looks like the maximum would be about four blocks; 
eight blocks between LRT stations) and to serve the VA center at 
Fort Miley.  West of 38th Avenue the LRT would probably turn into 
local streetcar service, just like on the N or the L.
 
West of Starr King, where traffic on Geary comes together from 
two one-way streets, I think an LRT line much like Santa Clara's 
makes sense.  East of there, the one-way streets are narrow and I 
doubt if they could take anything like this.  I suspect you'd 
have to either run them on the surface, which would be worse than 
current bus service because you couldn't move around obstacles, 
or run them underground, which would cost a fortune, but would 
allow connection to the Muni Metro subway at Montgomery Street. I 
suspect *if* it happens it will be the latter, but money problems 
will prevent anything happening for a number of years yet. 
 
By the way this the proposed line is usually referred to as the 
"B-Geary" line because the old streetcar line on Geary was called 
the B.  (Actually there were two lines, one which ran from 6th 
and Fulton up 6th to Geary and then downtown, called the A, and 
the other which ran from 38th and Geary to downtown called the B.  
I bet everybody was just terribly interested in this...) 
 
>It seems to me a completely aerial system (even downtown, if possible, 
>like the Detroit People Mover or Chicago El) would be pretty neat, 
>though very expensive to build. 
 
Again, it's out of the question.  I'm not entirely in sympathy 
with the NIMBY people who can't stand having something *high* in 
their neighborhood, and I suspect that a transit line's impact on 
a neighborhood is much more positive than the freeways that have 
been fought before, but I guarantee you that however wonderful an 
aerial line might seem from an engineering standpoint, it is 
politically impossible.
 
>  But it would be fast, cheap to operate,
>and be a neat tourist attraction, like the Seattle monorail (tourists
>like to be high up).  I know, talk is cheap . . . .
 
Personally I don't think SkyTrain gets lots of tourist traffic 
just to look around Vancouver and I doubt that one on Geary (what 
is there to *see* around Geary?  nothing)  will do any better.  
Even if it could happen.  Which it can't.  Besides, tourism is *not* a
reason to install a transit line unless the tourism already forms a
good portion of the traffic in the corridor.  Transit money is too
sparse to waste...
 
 =Aaron=
 
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"