jirfy

Muni Metro—Current & Planned Lines: Route map showing existing and planned Muni Metro lines. Some existing routes have been redrawn to facilitate more efficient and reliable operations; details here. F-Wharves operations west of Embarcadero are not shown.

Rapid Transit For Silicon Valley: Silicon Valley—among the most innovative regions in the world—sorely lacks efficient transportation systems. Roads are clogged, public transit is spotty and decades of urban policy have promoted solo driving. It’s time to change that, and we can start by revamping VTA’s existing network.

VTA categorizes its bus routes into five categories: community, core, express/limited, feeder and local. In 2008, VTA released a report discussing ridership patterns across its approximately 70 bus lines; the results were telling. The highest ridership lines were all core routes, and the combination of all core routes accounted for over 75% of all bus ridership. The seven highest ridership core routes alone—the 22 El Camino, 23 Stevens Creek, 25 De Anza-Alum Rock via Valley Medical, 26 Lockheed-Eastridge, 66 Kaiser-Dixon Landing, 70 Capitol and 522 El Camino—accounted for over 50% of all bus ridership.* In short, less than a tenth of VTA’s bus network captures over half its ridership.

Add VTA’s light rail network to the picture, and this core bus-rail backbone accounts for just over 60% of all VTA ridership. Doubling down on this system backbone—introducing amenities such as WiFi on buses, converting some bus routes to BRT, shortening peak headways, etc.—would drastically advance transit service for Silicon Valley commuters. It may not be economically feasible to build a new rapid transit system from scratch, but we can convert VTA’s existing routes into a solid bus-rail rapid transit network (so long as VTA stops funding contradictory projects, like road widening on Montague). I propose the following ideas to achieve this goal:

1. Convert highest ridership bus lines to BRT: VTA already has this in the works; the 22/522 El Camino is on track to become a BRT line within the coming years, while the 23 Stevens Creek would morph into two separate BRT lines—Stevens Creek BRT from De Anza to Downtown SJ, and Santa Clara BRT from Downtown SJ to Eastridge via Alum Rock. Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, not all sections of these BRT routes will run on dedicated bus lanes. For BRT to work best, dedicated lanes are necessary, though at least VTA has a start with the concept (in all honesty, VTA simply needs to make tougher political calls and remove traffic lanes where needed). Nonetheless, VTA’s BRT plans still call for other standard BRT features such as signal priority, dedicated stations, low-floor buses, off-bus fare collection, real-time arrival information and onboard WiFi.

2. Convert remaining high ridership routes to Rapid Routes: VTA should upgrade the remaining high ridership routes not being converted to BRT to Rapid Routes (think 522, but with more improvements). These routes would still share lanes with existing road traffic, but would embrace some BRT concepts such as signal priority, dedicated stations, low-floor buses, off-bus fare collection, real-time arrival information and onboard WiFi. Even if not enough funding is available for dedicated stations at all locations, a covered, well-marked stop makes bus riding drastically more accessible to first-time riders. Rapid Routes wouldn’t stop at all stops (for example, the 70 Rapid would not stop at all 70 stops).

3. Streamline light rail network: VTA’s light rail system is slow. That’s partially due to speed restrictions in areas such as Downtown SJ where trains crawl at 10 MPH, but it’s also because the system serves a number of stops that probably don’t need to be served. VTA should make some tough calls and eliminate a handful of light rail stations to speed service for the majority of its riders (Evelyn Station comes to mind). If VTA isn’t willing to or is unable to shutter low-ridership stations, it should at least look more into express services, similar to what has already been implemented between Convention Center and Ohlone during commute hours.

4. Focus on Rapid Network outlined above, not ‘Express Bus Business Plan’: Details on VTA’s ‘Express Bus Business Plan’ are spotty, but based on a recent presentation, it looks like VTA wants to double down on its express/limited bus lines (and increase express bus fares from $4 to $5) as a means to attract ridership. The plan proposes many ideas similar to BRT, such as rebranding vehicles and implementing onboard WiFi, but VTA’s focus on its existing express routes is flawed. All of VTA’s express routes combined account for only 3.9% of all ridership—less than any one of the core bus routes mentioned earlier. Given VTA’s existing reach with its core bus routes, chasing improvements for its under-performing express routes is confusing. Re-shifting focus from express routes to the core bus-rail system outlined above would yield significantly more improvements for more riders.

5. Marketing: VTA must aggressively market its revamped core bus-rail system—people won’t switch to public transit unless they are aware of the system and feel comfortable taking the system (people don’t want to invest a lot of time figuring out how to ride).

- Introduce a subway-esque map for just the rapid network—it’s clearer and easier to understand for first-time riders who are unfamiliar with VTA’s vast bus network.

- Don’t limit real-time arrival information to the stations—revamp the VTA website to include this data, and push it on a dedicated arrivals Twitter feed.

- Post an easy-to-understand infographic at each station served by the rapid network showing new riders how to ride: where to purchase tickets, how to pay before boarding, etc. (A large portion of a bus’s efficiency depends on the swift loading and unloading of its passengers.)

There are many other small marketing initiatives I won’t list here, but it’s crucial that VTA take marketing the rapid network seriously—there are few other opportunities (if any) to bring rapid transit to the Silicon Valley.

What I’ve presented above is a vision for rapid transit in the Silicon Valley. Some parts of the vision are already being implemented, while others won’t materialize without sufficient funding and political will. Most of the ideas presented here cost little (if leaders are willing to make some politically unpopular calls), and some could even save money (shutting down under-performing light rail stations) Ultimately, however, Silicon Valley’s transportation leadership must think longer term and focus on bringing a dependable, efficient public transit network to the region. Silicon Valley deserves no less.

* The 68 SJ-Gilroy was excluded from the highest ridership routes list because it serves regions outside of the main Silicon Valley area.

“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.” Be heard this Election Day, and make a difference.

Infographic: 2012 California Propositions: Where the Money Goes: I put together this infographic so California voters could get an idea of how money is being spent on state propositions this year. (Especially interesting to see the imbalance in spending on certain proposition campaigns—such as 37 or 38). Get educated and go vote!

A better Caltrain map: Caltrain’s current route map looks stale and provides minimal transfer info. I’ve created a refreshed map which provides more comprehensive transfer info and a one-way fare chart. The current rendition doesn’t include weekend-only and south-of-SJ stops. Updated 10/25/12.

Concept: Kindle Launchpad: Reading Internet content on an e-ink Kindle is unfittingly inconvenient; for all the hype around the Kindle as a solid reading device, it falls embarrassingly short on the Internet front. Enter the Kindle Launchpad concept.

The Kindle Launchpad concept is based on two main ideas:

1. New, built-in apps preloaded on the Kindle give users greater access to content (especially Internet content)

2. New Launchpad homescreen acts as a central hub to view the content most important to you

I’ll discuss these points in detail here:

Apps: In-house apps would be introduced to expand access to Internet content for Kindle users. An improved web browser (read: zippier) equipped with article mode allows users to browse the web for articles and render them in a clean, readable format. Facebook and Twitter allows users to share articles, and also to find articles shared by others (this is especially true for Twitter). An RSS reader allows users to read articles from all their favorite online sources in one central location—no need to hunt around multiple sites on the web browser. Saved to Kindle allows desktop users to save articles they see online on to their Kindle without having to connect a USB cable. If you see an article that you want to read later while using Firefox on your laptop, simple mark the article in your browser (using an Amazon-provided plug-in), and Amazon will automatically format and save the article on to your Kindle via Wifi. This is very similar to what Pocket or Readability does today. Note that the Kindle will support in-house apps only; no third-party apps and no app store (for now, at least).

Launchpad Homescreen: In addition to the standard Library homescreen, users can also switch to a Launchpad homescreen (users can set which homescreen they want as their default). The Launchpad screen features 6 tiles. Users can pin their favorite content to tiles so they have immediate access to this content upon turning on the Kindle. Users can pin virtually anything on to a Launchpad Tile—books, specific pages in books, newspaper or magazine subscriptions, specific apps (the RSS reader, for example), specific feeds or sections within an app (a specific RSS feed, a specific Twitter user, weather at a specific location, etc.) or specific articles from Saved to Kindle. If a specific RSS feed is pinned to a tile (say, the NYT RSS feed), then the tile would display the most recent item from that feed. In the case of weather, the tile would display the most up to date weather information for the user-set location. This allows users to access important content and information without having to go through menus and opening specific apps. Users will be able to set how often they want their Launchpad screen to update (every 15 minutes, every hour, manually, etc) to preserve battery life. This feature was inspired by Flipboard and Windows Phone.Note that the Kindle Launchpad concept works with what already exists on the Kindle. Users would still be able to read books. Users would still be able to purchase any content from Amazon. Users who don’t want to use the Launchpad homescreen can simply set the Library homescreen as their default homescreen, and it would be just like using a Kindle Paperwhite today. The Kindle Launchpad concept gives users the option to access to virtually any content on the Internet.

When rumors of a Kindle refresh took off a few months ago, I quietly hoped that Amazon would develop the e-ink Kindle into a truly comprehensive reading device. The current Kindles work great for books and newspaper/magazine subscriptions (via Amazon), but they completely miss out on the largest and fastest growing realm of content: the Internet. And it’s not as if this is a new dimension that has not been touched—the abundance of RSS readers (such as Flipboard) on the App Store or Play Store demonstrate that consumers want something that centralizes all their Internet content.

Why doesn’t Amazon embrace Internet content? Perhaps the flood of easily-accessible, free content from the Internet could hurt content sales for Amazon (why buy an NYT subscription from them when you can get Reuters for free?). Also, a Kindle with a solid Internet reading experience would require heavy WiFi usage, which drastically shortens battery life—short battery life is never a popular selling point.

But times are changing, and Internet content is booming (ask Newsweek how they feel about this). Amazon is doing itself and its customers a disservice by ignoring access to Internet content on its Kindle lineup. With Kindle Paperwhite, Amazon managed to pack a bright reading light into the device without compromising battery life. With the same determination, I’m sure that the Kindle can become a truly comprehensive reading device too—one that puts books and newspapers right next to online content.

Redrawing Muni Metro: Simply redrawing Muni Metro’s route map could yield impressive service improvements for the entire system. Here’s how:



Muni Metro is designed so that all lines pass through Downtown. While this means that passengers rarely have to transfer trains (since most trips are to or from Downtown), it also means that trains must be extremely well-coordinated within the Market Street Tunnel, through which all six Metro lines pass. Unfortunately, trains are not well-coordinated, and Metro gets stuck in its own traffic; trains often have to stop between stations to allow another train to clear the station ahead. The result: embarrassingly slow speeds, which SFMTA admits leads to higher operating costs and a bad rap. Could limiting the number of lines traveling through the Market Tunnel alleviate Metro’s congestion problems? Could redrawing the Metro routes improve on-time performance? Perhaps. I’ve redrawn the Muni Metro network in a way designed to increase the efficiency of the entire system—especially within the Market Tunnel. The revised route map is shown here, and important points regarding route revisions and trade-offs are discussed below.


Present-day KT separated, T merges with N: The T line will run from Sunnydale to Caltrain/4th & King, and continue west as the N line to Ocean Beach. The N and T would run as the same line, similar to how the K and T run as the same line today. The portion south of Caltrain/4th & King retains the T line name in anticipation of the Central Subway extension (the N and T would run as separate lines again upon completion of the Central Subway).

 The merged ‘NT’ line would use the present-day T line platform at Caltrain/4th & King.

M terminus extended to Caltrain/4th & King: As the T line will no longer serve the Market Street corridor (see previous point), the M will be extended to Caltrain/4th & King to accommodate commuters transferring from Caltrain. M line passengers gain direct access to the ballpark and Caltrain, while Caltrain commuters gain direct access to the Twin Peaks neighborhood and SF State, a notable high ridership station. Caltrain commuters will no longer have a direct link to K line stations between Balboa Park and West Portal, such as City College. Th

e extended M line would use the present-day N line platform at Caltrain/4th & King.

K loses direct Downtown link: The K line loses its direct link to Downtown; inbound ridership between Balboa Park and West Portal on the K is too low (less than 5500 per day) to justify running the K line through the Market Tunnel and adding to system congestion. (For comparison, inbound ridership between Balboa Park and West Portal on the M is nearly 11000.) Passengers served by present-day K line stations between Balboa Park and West Portal must transfer to the M at West Portal for Downtown service, or take the J line to Duboce & Church via the Mission (see next point).



K merges with J; J loses direct Downtown link: The present-day K line combines with the present-day J line to form one J Church-Ingleside line. By combining the two lines, City College/Ingleside passengers gain direct access to the Mission and the Duboce Triangle (where passengers can transfer to the N for Downtown or Ocean Beach service). As areas served by the J line are also served by BART, the J will lose its direct Downtown link to increase overall efficiency in the Market Tunnel, and will terminate at Duboce & Church. Note that BART provides a faster and less expensive option for travel to Downtown stations such as Powell or Embarcadero for areas served by the J.



Lines running in Market Tunnel decreases from 5 to 3 (3 to 2 between West Portal and Van Ness): Fewer lines entering and exiting the Market Tunnel results in less required coordination between entering and exiting trains (only the L, M, NT now enter and exit the Market Tunnel; think of a highway with fewer cars trying to enter and exit). This leads to smoother operations.



Revised headways: The following discussion excludes the F-Wharves line. Metro’s current headways are pegged at 7-10 minutes during peak hours, 15-20 minutes during off-peak hours. Assuming average peak headways of 7 minutes and average off-peak headways of 15 minutes, a total of approximately 630 trains run each day for the present-day 5-line system (present-day KT counted as one line). Theoretically, during peak hours, one train passes through any given Market Tunnel station between Van Ness and Embarcadero every 1.4 minutes. However, this is often not the case due to congestion-related delays and service blips.



With the redrawn route map, fewer lines run through the Market Tunnel. This allows more frequent headways to be implemented on each line, thus providing more frequent service to areas served by only one Metro line. Conversely, the Market Tunnel will see slightly reduced service. However, reducing service in the Market Tunnel modestly, say to 2 or 3 minute headways during peak hours instead of the current 1.4, may actually increase overall efficiency because larger gaps between trains create a buffer for delays. With the redrawn route layout, Muni can recalibrate peak headways to 5 minutes for the J line, 6 minutes for the L, M, NT lines, and 12 minutes for all lines during off-peak hours. Even with increased headways, this scheme would require only 620 train-runs per day, lower than the current 630 (this is due to the fewer number of lines overall). At the same time, Muni would provide better service to non-Downtown areas while maintaining a decent (and likely more reliable) 2 minute headway in the Market Tunnel during peak hours.