7 ms·

While I agree with disliking the things you mentioned, could it be argued that adding barriers to entry for getting into the city will just increase WFH and hur

While I agree with disliking the things you mentioned, could it be argued that adding barriers to entry for getting into the city will just increase WFH and hurt SF more? I can see a lot of people choosing to just stay home rather than take a bus – not everyone is close to MUNI or BART.

jazzyjackson 2y ago
Fewer single-person-vehicles = more desirable ontime Bus/Tram throughput = more people who are close to MUNIBART taking MUNIBART. Then use tolls to improve and expand the mass transit services instead of only ever catering to the single-person-car-commuters. (ofc it takes more than ontime performance to sell people on mass transit, needs to be a safe environment at all hours of the day -- even if I can take BART into the city in the afternoon, if I don't feel safe taking it back at 10PM then I'm just going to drive both ways, to say nothing of the choice to stop running trains at midnight)
- ghaff 2y ago
  Safety and schedule. I've never had a safety issue with taking commuter rail into Boston but taking it home from an evening event is basically a non-starter given how seldom it runs and how much longer it will take relative to driving even if I catch my train.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
    I'm very hopeful that Boston commuter rail gets electrified with the associated speed and frequency improvements soonish. the inner half of the commuter rail network is absolutely dense enough to be worth running service every 15 minutes on peak and every 30 off peak
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Top speed (mostly) comes from the tracks, not the method of motive power. As it stands they're already maxing out and exceeding (when they're late) the max speed for the class of rail they have. Some of the inner stops might get a few seconds faster with better acceleration but that's about it. The grade crossings are also kinda f'd. At full speed you can be in the middle of the train and see the arms still be in the process of lowering at certain crossings. That ain't safe. Faster won't make that better.
      - scottbez1 2y ago
        Top speed, sure, but for typical commuter heavy-rail, a non-express train isn't running at top speed for all that long. Diesel-electric trains take a LOT longer to accelerate compared to a modern EMU, so much so that Caltrain's electrification project shaved 23 minutes off the SF to San Jose local trip, from 100 to 77 minutes. Videos [0] [1] make the acceleration improvement pretty clear. [0] https://x.com/Caltrain/status/1804278237486588179 https://x.com/Caltrain/status/1804278237486588179 [1] https://x.com/eiioth/status/1822814729079009516 https://x.com/eiioth/status/1822814729079009516
        potato3732842 2y ago
        The MBTA already runs top speed on most of its lines once you get outside of roughly I95 depending on the line. Getting there faster would help but I don't think it would shave as much time off the end to end trip as you think. And for the urban stops they already accelerate and brake at the limit of what is reasonable for standing passengers. They can't push it too much or an old lady is gonna bounce off a wall and get a nose bleed and that's a bad look. It's not like Acela where a ticket guarantees a seat. There will definitely be some improvement from electrification but I don't think it will affect median travel times much and the affect on average will mostly be from reliability.
        ghaff 2y ago
        The Fitchburg line did do upgrades a few years ago. I think they double-tracked sections that weren't. It still take a while--hour+--from the outer reaches.
        adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        if there aren't enough seats and they're still running 30 minute headways, that's incredibly stupid.
        ghaff 2y ago
        Not enough seats is mostly pretty close into the city in my experience. At least on the line that I sometimes take, it's mostly Waltham in which doesn't have a mass transit line.
    - Xylakant 2y ago
      Why ask for 15/30? My schedule right next door for the Berlin subway is 3/10. During peak hours, you don’t even check when the next train runs. And they’re all full. I do believe Boston has more inhabitants than this small city.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        The Boston commuter rail network would be equivalent to Berlin's S-Bahn network, which is 10/20 minutes, and 30 on Friday and Saturday nights.
      - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        the subway is at 5/10 or so (it would be very nice if we got it down to 3/10), the commuter rail, however is mostly hourly at peak and 2 hours to never of peak
        ghaff 2y ago
        Yeah. I'll usually take commuter rail in for the rare 9-5ish stuff because it's such a lousy drive. But catching one of the very few later trains, especially if I have to time it with the subway, just doesn't work and it's usually a <1 hour drive anyway at that time of night. I'm also pretty far out and not all the trains run that far.
- milch 2y ago
  Most transit agencies have this problem of the "vicious transit cycle" - people don't take the bus because it's too infrequent/unreliable => more cars make the buses more unreliable => less money because so few people take it => back to start. It's amazing when you're sitting in a bus behind 20 cars backed up over 4 blocks, and you look back and there's 50 people on the bus. Really makes you think why the 50-person bus doesn't get priority over all of the single occupancy vehicles
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Nah. Most agencies have a problem of people realizing that wasting life in buses is not worth it. Transit can never compete with cars on speed in well-designed cities.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      I guess by 'well designed cities' you mean 'cities with copious amounts of parking' For certain high frequency routes in Chicago, I never minded sitting on the bus to get across town. At least once I got off I didn't have to find a parking spot. Now wasting life waiting for a bus is another story.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > I guess by 'well designed cities' you mean 'cities with copious amounts of parking' Yup. Wide roads, plenty of parking, distributed industry and office space, low density.
        saagarjha 2y ago
        "Low density" just means that the entire area is covered in asphalt. That's not what well designed looks like.
        cyberax 2y ago
        Yes, and? > That's not what well designed looks like. It is more flexible, people-friendly, enables better living. So yeah, "well designed".
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
maxwellg 2y ago
For a concrete example of carrot and stick - check out ridership numbers for the 49 after the Van Ness BRT project finished. 49 ridership is more than completely recovered at 140% of pre-pandemic numbers. In comparison, the 38 and 38R didn't get their dedicated bus lane out in the Richmond and ridership numbers are still nowhere near pre-pandemic. Make the bus fast and frequent and people will take it. https://www.sfmta.com/reports/average-daily-muni-boardings-route-and-month-pre-pandemic-present https://www.sfmta.com/reports/average-daily-muni-boardings-r...
- tlogan 2y ago
  By the way, the head of SFMTA resigned this week, and there are rumors of a full audit on the horizon.
mperham 2y ago
Or it could be argued that more people want to take the bus but it’s too slow to be practical due to car gridlock.
paxys 2y ago
Reducing the number of daily commuters isn't going to "hurt" the city. Quite the opposite in fact. Actual residents make the city what it is, and reducing traffic/congestion/honking/pollution is going to make it a much more attractive place to live.
- gotoeleven 2y ago
  [flagged]

jazzyjackson 2y ago

Fewer single-person-vehicles = more desirable ontime Bus/Tram throughput = more people who are close to MUNIBART taking MUNIBART. Then use tolls to improve and expand the mass transit services instead of only ever catering to the single-person-car-commuters. (ofc it takes more than ontime performance to sell people on mass transit, needs to be a safe environment at all hours of the day -- even if I can take BART into the city in the afternoon, if I don't feel safe taking it back at 10PM then I'm just going to drive both ways, to say nothing of the choice to stop running trains at midnight)

ghaff 2y ago
Safety and schedule. I've never had a safety issue with taking commuter rail into Boston but taking it home from an evening event is basically a non-starter given how seldom it runs and how much longer it will take relative to driving even if I catch my train.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  I'm very hopeful that Boston commuter rail gets electrified with the associated speed and frequency improvements soonish. the inner half of the commuter rail network is absolutely dense enough to be worth running service every 15 minutes on peak and every 30 off peak
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Top speed (mostly) comes from the tracks, not the method of motive power. As it stands they're already maxing out and exceeding (when they're late) the max speed for the class of rail they have. Some of the inner stops might get a few seconds faster with better acceleration but that's about it. The grade crossings are also kinda f'd. At full speed you can be in the middle of the train and see the arms still be in the process of lowering at certain crossings. That ain't safe. Faster won't make that better.
    - scottbez1 2y ago
      Top speed, sure, but for typical commuter heavy-rail, a non-express train isn't running at top speed for all that long. Diesel-electric trains take a LOT longer to accelerate compared to a modern EMU, so much so that Caltrain's electrification project shaved 23 minutes off the SF to San Jose local trip, from 100 to 77 minutes. Videos [0] [1] make the acceleration improvement pretty clear. [0] https://x.com/Caltrain/status/1804278237486588179 https://x.com/Caltrain/status/1804278237486588179 [1] https://x.com/eiioth/status/1822814729079009516 https://x.com/eiioth/status/1822814729079009516
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        The MBTA already runs top speed on most of its lines once you get outside of roughly I95 depending on the line. Getting there faster would help but I don't think it would shave as much time off the end to end trip as you think. And for the urban stops they already accelerate and brake at the limit of what is reasonable for standing passengers. They can't push it too much or an old lady is gonna bounce off a wall and get a nose bleed and that's a bad look. It's not like Acela where a ticket guarantees a seat. There will definitely be some improvement from electrification but I don't think it will affect median travel times much and the affect on average will mostly be from reliability.
        ghaff 2y ago
        The Fitchburg line did do upgrades a few years ago. I think they double-tracked sections that weren't. It still take a while--hour+--from the outer reaches.
        adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        if there aren't enough seats and they're still running 30 minute headways, that's incredibly stupid.
        ghaff 2y ago
        Not enough seats is mostly pretty close into the city in my experience. At least on the line that I sometimes take, it's mostly Waltham in which doesn't have a mass transit line.
  - Xylakant 2y ago
    Why ask for 15/30? My schedule right next door for the Berlin subway is 3/10. During peak hours, you don’t even check when the next train runs. And they’re all full. I do believe Boston has more inhabitants than this small city.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      The Boston commuter rail network would be equivalent to Berlin's S-Bahn network, which is 10/20 minutes, and 30 on Friday and Saturday nights.
    - adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
      the subway is at 5/10 or so (it would be very nice if we got it down to 3/10), the commuter rail, however is mostly hourly at peak and 2 hours to never of peak
      - ghaff 2y ago
        Yeah. I'll usually take commuter rail in for the rare 9-5ish stuff because it's such a lousy drive. But catching one of the very few later trains, especially if I have to time it with the subway, just doesn't work and it's usually a <1 hour drive anyway at that time of night. I'm also pretty far out and not all the trains run that far.
milch 2y ago
Most transit agencies have this problem of the "vicious transit cycle" - people don't take the bus because it's too infrequent/unreliable => more cars make the buses more unreliable => less money because so few people take it => back to start. It's amazing when you're sitting in a bus behind 20 cars backed up over 4 blocks, and you look back and there's 50 people on the bus. Really makes you think why the 50-person bus doesn't get priority over all of the single occupancy vehicles
- cyberax 2y ago
  Nah. Most agencies have a problem of people realizing that wasting life in buses is not worth it. Transit can never compete with cars on speed in well-designed cities.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    I guess by 'well designed cities' you mean 'cities with copious amounts of parking' For certain high frequency routes in Chicago, I never minded sitting on the bus to get across town. At least once I got off I didn't have to find a parking spot. Now wasting life waiting for a bus is another story.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > I guess by 'well designed cities' you mean 'cities with copious amounts of parking' Yup. Wide roads, plenty of parking, distributed industry and office space, low density.
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        "Low density" just means that the entire area is covered in asphalt. That's not what well designed looks like.
        cyberax 2y ago
        Yes, and? > That's not what well designed looks like. It is more flexible, people-friendly, enables better living. So yeah, "well designed".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

maxwellg 2y ago

For a concrete example of carrot and stick - check out ridership numbers for the 49 after the Van Ness BRT project finished. 49 ridership is more than completely recovered at 140% of pre-pandemic numbers. In comparison, the 38 and 38R didn't get their dedicated bus lane out in the Richmond and ridership numbers are still nowhere near pre-pandemic. Make the bus fast and frequent and people will take it. https://www.sfmta.com/reports/average-daily-muni-boardings-route-and-month-pre-pandemic-present https://www.sfmta.com/reports/average-daily-muni-boardings-r...

tlogan 2y ago
By the way, the head of SFMTA resigned this week, and there are rumors of a full audit on the horizon.

mperham 2y ago

Or it could be argued that more people want to take the bus but it’s too slow to be practical due to car gridlock.

paxys 2y ago

Reducing the number of daily commuters isn't going to "hurt" the city. Quite the opposite in fact. Actual residents make the city what it is, and reducing traffic/congestion/honking/pollution is going to make it a much more attractive place to live.

gotoeleven 2y ago
[flagged]