Just how slow is the Central Subway?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2023
- The brand new Central Subway has faced all sorts of issues, but most frustratingly its slow speeds and low frequencies. Just how slow is it though, especially when compared to other modes of transport?
Check out The House of Transit's video: • Central Subway: An Hon...
#sanfrancisco #muni #bayarea #transit #railfans
I think two things can solve this:
- Extension to North Beach to increase utility past Powell St.
- Better signal priority
They should have grade separated Bryant st and Brennan St by using cut and cover tunneling. It makes no sense for the tunnel to not extend that extra block. I think they should have grade separated all of the way to chase center but that would be far more complicated due to the DTX and Mission bay so I understand why it’s kept at grade.
Wait till you get through rush hour. The bus will take 15 minutes from Chinatown to Powell itself. Also try going from Powell to Chinatown; or any station to Chinatown. You save much more time especially since you don’t have to walk up hill. Chinatown is the most dense and lowest car ownership neighborhood in the city; and this line ultimately is a net good for those who live there, plenty of elderly and families use this line to get to Bayview/viz valley/excelsior and other transfer points! Just wish it was more frequent. (During warriors game days the frequency is every 6 minutes; honestly should be the standard)
This!
Plus, they will be increasing the frequency to at least 5-6 minutes in the Central Subway at some point. Then the whole trip on the T will take 9 minutes on the train and 2.5-3 minutes average wait time. 11.5-12 minutes total trip time is fine for a subway line in the city center with dense stops.
Some people are just professional whiners. Everything has to be "wrong", "bad", and "terrible" for them to shyt on, otherwise they're not satisfied with their lives.
@@TohaBgood2 you're professionally whining in this comment section. also the vid was analyzing the as-is frequency, which makes sense... that's what it is now. I don't care about picking apart his walking speed one way or the other.
you're right, that use case is definitely good.
but in the other way, I have spent a long time transferring and waiting from Powell -> Union market going to Chinatown on the T. I think you only really benefit from that ride if you take it Chinatown further south of market
@@knightlunaaire1087 Powell to Chinatown is a bit tricky; the alternative is detour to Montgomery go up and around to the 30/45 or walk through Stockton tunnel uphill. I think frequency is what needed here because it’s so much faster than the alternatives for this use case to go to Chinatown
@@knightlunaaire1087 So you don't care about facts because you want to be able to whine in peace about things that are objectively either "completely fine and comparable to other cities" or "actually better that average or even good".
Cool. Glad to hear that you're admitting that facts don't matter to you.
Of all the options compared, the T line is probably the one that affords the most mental/physical rest to riders during the trip. I can catch up on emails, and answer texts, or read some news standing at the platform or riding the train. The bus requires more constant attention/awareness, and walking makes these things much harder (though the exercise has other benefits). Total trip duration isn't everything!
Wait until these people realize that the Paris Metro is often slower than the comparable busses and has stops every five football fields on average.
The train is always 100x more comfortable than the bus simply because you don't get jerked around as much and you can browse on your phone in peace.
SF needs to turn the entire MUNI Metro into a *real, grade separated metro*, and replace all their high-capacity rapid bus / BRT lines with grade-separated metro lines as well.
Would have loved to see a biking comparison! In my experience living in SF biking is the fastest way to get around (with a slight caveat depending on the hills involved).
As a general note on the slowness of transit in SF, going to lands end or the presidio by transit can feel like a real trek even though it’s not actually that far in reality.
Interesting comparison but this is a very short distance in a non rush hour, considering you add in the walking to / from train station time, the longer it gets the more beneficial it is, a 3 stop distance really defeat the purpose of a train. However, while I think this comparison is misleading, I agree there is something can be done to improve on this surface interaction between transit and other cars, it is still a embarrassment compared to European or Asian countries. this subway goes to Chinatown, if you compare these modes (exclude N I suppose) from Chinatown to Caltrain, I am sure the result is a lot more close to expectations
Closest stop to me is Van Ness and the N train usually beats the bus to Caltrain from here. At least I think lol
I think the T makes sense as a more regional service.
The distance from 4th and King to the Powell station is less than a mile so the bus is still competive especially when average wait times are taken into consideration.
I feel the T would be more competitive on a 3+ mile trip compared to bus equivalent.
nah, the 15 Bayview Express is faster than the T. Instead of having the bus act as the express service, they should reduce the stops on T-Third, and add signal preemption to make the train the express as what it should be and have the 15 serve local stops.
For real. It would become so much more useful if they just extended it out to Fisherman's Wharf
@@Chario_i hope they focus more on getting the extension to washington square (north beach) completed and opened before looking to expanding to fisherman’s wharf, as the tracks currently end there at columbus & union
@@tventures2 correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Washington square on the way to fisherman's wharf? So they'd have to do that regardless
@@Chario_ No, he means to say that the tunnels were actually fully built all the way to the future Washington Square location because that was the closest place to extract the tunnel boring machines. But the crazy NIMBY locals blocked the station so they couldn't build it in the same phase as the Central Subway.
Yep, look it up! The tunnels are 100% complete all the way to Washington Square but the local BOS Supervisor and his pet NIMBY non-profits killed that station with endless appeals. Then they blamed some routine cost overruns to permanently block the station project and make sure that the station doesn't get built until the next phase.
We could just fund the construction of that station and have it done within a couple of years on the cheap, but the Aaron Peskin will probably block it again. They want to limit the number of "undesirables" in their neighborhood.
It’s so annoying that they under built this like so much that they’re hesitant to even extend it, saying that it will be over capacity with more stops. What was even the point then?
You haven't tried Karlsruhe's new underground train line. One of the slowest moving ever!
I always want Caltrain Electrifications and California High-Speed Rail in California and I always love Caltrain Electrifications and California High-Speed Rail in California.😮
Solution build an EL and link the tunnel of the N with the central subway directly and build another EL as a replacement for the N turning the N into a full on metro line do the same with the M. Now ask yourself are the rest of the muni rail lines needed?
The issue is quite clear: lack of proper funding. For example, the people wanted a North Beach station (evident by the TBM removal conflict) but we lacked the few hundred million dollars to do it. We wanted to build 3-4 car train capacity but that would have cost another $500-700 million (guess). The tunnel entrance conflicts with the freeway offramp causing train delays because it would have cost more (and more disruptive) to put farther south. There were plans to add signal priority but the cost overruns and delays dropped it from the plans.
We need someone to come in with a strong vision and ability to attract federal/state dollars. If San Jose can spend $12b on a BART extension, we should be able to muster up $3-4b to complete the vision for this subway and extend the subway to the Marina.
At least I would think that one could be added infill at North Beach at much lower cost.
@@iamfishhead Yea but in order for them to do a single infill, they have to study a longer extension as well as other alternatives… this was told to me by the lead project manager at SFMTA on this. At that pint they might as well study a full extension and phase open further stations. It’ll take at least 3-4 years for the study….
Being from SF, my biggest gripe with the sfmuni is that they don’t allow bikes, even though the buses do. What’s up with that lol
not enough space...?
If you have a folding bike, it is allowed as long as it is folded. I did that a few times with no issues
Cool comparison! Definitely think the bus is the way to go most of the time. The long after hours wait for the T is also pretty brutal
Guys, I don't understand San Francisco, so you have one system which goes in traffic, in dedicated rights of way AND underground in different places? Don't you think that's a little ridiculous? 😅
If it wasn't ridiculous I wouldn't have made a video about it.
@@tomo-tawa-linja haha I see. Yes, muni is just very weird.
It's not ridiculous at all. The Muni Metro goes entirely in subways in the dense city center to avoid traffic and on the surface in the suburbs. This is actually pretty darn standard for similar mixed light metros.
This creator is just trying to farm outrage that he himself is trying to create.
@@TohaBgood2 It's not at all standard for metros to build an expensive tunnel just to limit service through it with sections of track being in mixed traffic. It's only sometimes happens with trams in Europe, like systems in Karlsruhe and Stuttgart where capacity in the core is severely limited but NEVER something like this is done with a metro. You spend so much resources just for your vehicles to stay in traffic? You don't need higher order transit if it is slower than busses.
@@smb6995 Again, the trains go in the subway in the city center to avoid traffic congestion and emerge outside of the subways in the less congested suburbs.
How to fix: Signal priority, more frequency
Will SFMTA do this? Probably not for years :)
Actually, that's literally planned on to some extent already in the works. They're just waiting for funding. The voters shot down the previous attempt to fund these exact upgrades.
@@TohaBgood2 Thats why I said “years”. Not even SFMTAs fault, we need to vote better
@@m0istl0la97 Yep, that's hard to argue with. Even impossible.
The normies have grown too apathetic and the crazy activists elected themselves a ton of crazy BOS Supervisors and DAs and whatnot. Now we have a mess caused by ideologues. We just need to vote for people who actually care about this city and want our service and our people to thrive, rather than to make some ideological point with every initiative and every law.
Yes and yeah of course Caltrain Electrifications and California High-Speed Rail in California.😮
My reaction on the video: 1. It is strange that busses take the same route as the subway train. Busses need to feed rail transport more passengers, not take passengers away from it. 2. It is strange that public transport doesn’t have priority at crossings and traffic lights. 3. It is strange that public transport doesn’t have its own dedicated lane on street level. 4. It is strange that the subway comes above ground on the street. 5. It is strange that the subway has a low velocity. 6. It is strange to call a tram/streetcar, which go from street level to underground, a subway train. It’s just a tram/streetcar occasionally going underground. 7. American public transport is strange. They need to invest more in public transport if they want more people using it, it needs to be an alternative mode of transport, with less hassle than driving (and parking) a car, cycling or walking. 8. Nice video though.
Thats just embarrassing
Reasons I don’t want to visit SF earthquakes was no 1 now it’s crime 2 former Speaker of the House Nancy P 3 earthquakes 4 empty downtown 5 taxes 6 California Gov who related to former Speaker of the house I ratter be in LA in case of earthquakes I be near the ocean get on a boat and leave (can’t do that in SF bay) and for the record nyc sucks
Lol