>
>re: Ridership on 3rd St Line
>see my previous post on this subject...ridership is expected to more
>than double, based on employment/population gains (mostly on the north
>end of the line-north of Army).
Right. You said 80,000+, north of Mission Bay. But most of the line is
south of there, meandering around from Bayview and Bayshore through Visitacion
Valley and Crocker-Amazon to the Curtis Green yard. I suspect that is
where you'd have the light ridership that increases the per passenger
mile costs. Part of the reason for the L.A. Blue Line's low per passenger
mile costs is that it has high utilization over the entire
length of the line, in part because it is an inherently bi-directional
service, with "downtowns" at both ends.
By the way, there is a certain
irony in this. Opponents of rail transit in L.A. have historically
argued that L.A. is ill-suited to rail transit because it is so
"multi-centered", without the dominant downtown of the S.F. sort.
Turns out this multi-centricity is actually an economic advantage
for light rail!
I know that Muni has made a deal with the Port to use the former
Western Pacific ferry property (near Pier 80) as the site of a new
Muni Metro maintenance yard. I wonder if they are thinking of running short
turns north of Army St.
Another possibility would be branching the
line at that point, running a branch on the abandoned right of way
along Army St. and into the Mission district. That would provide an
alternative route downtown from the south Mission/Bernal
Heights area as well as providing
some crosstown service for Dogpatch/Mission Bay.
>re: Equity service
>could be provided faster, cheaper and quicker by improved bus service.
I think about the only arguments of the Third St. light rail proponents
that haven't been rebutted in this discussion are related to
transit-oriented development (TOD), such as the local
Bayview community's TOD plan, based around the tangible investment in
improved service represented by light rail.
>
>re: Geary Line employment/population
>certainly it is retail/commercial west of Masonic, but at Masonic you
>have the shopping center and the (ever expanding) Kaiser Hospital
>complex. But the residential volume along the Geary Corridor is
>staggering, and the speed of a private/restricted right of way to
>downtown is essential.
>re: Geary bus overcrowding
>actually, at ridership peaks, you can get bunches of artics on
>Geary...all of them packed to the ceiling. note: the 38-L is scheduled
>only 6 minutes faster than the local from Transbay to 33rd.
If it were purely transit issues -- capacity needs, demand,
cost-effectiveness, time savings for the greatest number -- I think it's
clear that the Geary corridor would be the highest priority
for limited light rail dollars. The issues of land-use
development, equity for disadvantaged communities, political
support/opposition, etc. make the discussion less clearcut.
[..]
>re: CNG buses
>if you are going to pay the price/performance difference for CNG buses,
>why not string some more wire and go to 0 emission vehicles? BTW Muni
>will be testing some CNG buses.
>
Good point. This is an area where S.F. is in a much better position
than L.A. With the current pressures from Central Valley politicians
to get more stringent pollution controls on the Bay Area, I'm sure
diesel exhaust is bound to become more of a concern.
Tom Wetzel
+===============================================+
! Tom Wetzel !
! Senior Technical Writer !
! BEA Systems, Inc. !
! Sunnyvale, CA !
+===============================================+