Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg was in town earlier this month to tub-thump the slow-rolling disaster that is the Central Subway project and to claim that when it commences service — which is now ostensibly Nov. 19 — it’ll be worth the wait.
That’s a hell of a thing to say, considering this project has been in conception since he was in high school and was put before voters when he was just out of college.
In that time, the projected ridership for this rail line has cratered while its price tag has more than tripled. The final cost is now tabbed at $1.9 billion. Close to half a billion of those dollars are to come from local sources. That’s something to think about the next time your bus doesn’t show up.
The sclerotic process of the Central Subway is, by definition, an old story. We’ve had lots of time to write about how it’s taking lots of time. The exploding cost is also not a revelation, and San Francisco officials have long since given up feigning concern about a couple hundred million here or there.
If the Central Subway was a good and useful project, no one would remember the inveterate delays or obscene cost overruns. The BART extension to SFO also went grotesquely over budget — and, perversely, local transit agencies were made to fund a rail line for more affluent airport passengers. But nobody talks about that anymore because the BART line to the airport is so useful.
It is exceedingly difficult to foresee many future San Franciscans saying this about the Central Subway. That’s because it’s difficult to overstate how poorly designed this subway line is. The main problem is the Central Subway is a limited rail line, divorced from the rest of the Muni Metro system and accessible from Muni Metro and BART only via an onerous transfer seemingly designed by Rube Goldberg.
And it gets worse: As an ostensible cost-saving measure, the Central Subway tunnel platforms were designed to accommodate only two-car trains — a disastrous decision, among so many disastrous decisions, that hamstrings this multibillion-dollar project.
After years of delays, the Central Subway is slated to commence a limited shuttle service between Chinatown and Fourth and Brannan — not Caltrain — in mid-November (but notably after the election in which key transit funds are on the ballot). By January, the system may begin full service, running along the T-Line’s Third Street corridor.
And, someday, after that, the transit riders of San Francisco may pine for the days it never existed.
“As a transit nerd and subway fan, it is painful how badly they built this subway,” laments former longtime BART Commissioner Tom Radulovich. “There is incredible awkwardness built into the Central Subway, and we’re going to be reckoning with it for a long time.”
O. Henry-like in its tragic irony
But, like the Central Subway, let’s slow down. Let’s focus on the decision to build subway platforms only large enough to handle two-car trains. It’s O. Henry-like in its tragic irony: The ridership capacity that would have justified this project is now impossible to achieve. If people flock to this rail line, two-car trains will quickly fill up and be overwhelmed. And if they don’t, then it becomes an exorbitant white elephant.
It will be difficult for Muni to extend this line to North Beach and the Marina. And that’s a damn shame: Extending this line to Fisherman’s Wharf is the only thing that would make it a worthwhile transit project. But even if this comes to pass, saddled with puny two-car trains, the Central Subway cannot handle augmented ridership; during peak demand, trains departing the Marina would be full before they reached Chinatown.
Simply put: The Central Subway cannot carry the ridership numbers that were used to justify its existence. And post-facto enlarging the platforms in the now-completed subterranean stations would be fantastically disruptive and costly — if it were even possible at all.
“These two-car trains — it’s like the Toonerville Trolley” — a diminutive, century-old cartoon tram — quips Gerald Cauthen, a transit engineer and former Muni employee who helped plan and build the Metro system four decades ago.
Ex // Top Stories
An interactive map from the federal government shows how vulnerable The City is to extreme heat
Around 10 residents had moved in at the start of Mission Cabins’ first week, with an additional 10 at the start of its second
Yes SF, a World Economic Forum program, is backing 14 environmentally focused startups to help revitalize downtown San Francisco
“Subways can provide high-capacity transit for a lot of people. This subway won’t,” sums up Radulovich. “They designed it with very short platforms.”
And this, he continues, will lead to cascading problems. The dense development planned along the path of the Central Subway was meant to be served by a high-ridership line. “But it’s N-Judah capacity,” Radulovich says, “not BART capacity.”
The plan was, “Let’s basically build New York-style density. But on a streetcar line that can only run two-car trains,” he adds. “It’s a real mismatch.”
A 1,018-foot walk
Who will the Central Subway work for? For anyone hoping to take a straight shot from the Third Street corridor up to Chinatown and back, it could be all right, provided you don’t require additional transit and your preferred destination is near one of the relatively few stops.
For well-heeled visitors staying at Union Square hotels and hoping to attend a Dubs game at Chase Center or a convention at Moscone, it’ll be great.
It’ll be a bit surreal for passengers coming or going elsewhere via Muni or BART and hoping to make a transfer to or from the Central Subway. As it is, the transfer from the Central Subway’s Union Square/Market Street station to Powell Street Station requires a 1,018-foot walk — nearly three football fields (including end zones). There’s also an 85-foot ascent and an estimated travel time of 7 minutes, 6 seconds.
And that’s for an able-bodied adult.
Defenders of this project might note that, yes, there are very long transfers in New York, London or Mexico City. There are: But those are extensive subway systems in cities of 10 million or more. This, however, is a transfer between Line A and Line B.
Those determined to downplay the crushing decision to build short platforms have said that Muni could simply run more trains — and Muni has, indeed, stated it will run trains every 4 minutes on this line.
That is an audacious claim. And to do so would divert personnel and equipment from the rest of a system that isn’t exactly running like a Swiss watch.
Behind closed doors, Muni leaders claiming enthusiasm for this project admit that its operating and maintenance costs will hobble the agency.
In 2008, Muni made the spectacular claim that the Central Subway would be a moneymaker, to the tune of $23.9 million a year. That was an unbelievable claim — as in, one couldn’t believe it. By 2012, Muni had changed its tune and admitted that the Subway would drain $15.2 million a year from the system.
Muni didn’t respond to multiple requests for the current projections of the Central Subway’s annual O&M costs. But considering the passage of time, and the patterns for this project, it’s hard not to see it being greater than $15.2 million. This money is going to come from a system that was strapped even before COVID-19. So your commute will be affected even if you never get near the Central Subway.
