Rescue Muni

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.u00a0 I see it as a huge waste of money that should be used elsewhere to improve our trasnit system.u00a0 Starting with a Geary subway.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

Let’s pretend for the moment that the Central Subway is a bad idea, and somehow it gets cancelled. The federal funding wouldn’t go to a Geary Subway, it would go to a city like Cleveland that doesn’t have the density or projected growth that SF has. nnLet’s now say that we’re okay with Cleveland getting our subway funding, what does San Francisco get? Where would money come from for a Geary Subway? Certainly the city of SF isn’t in line to get a large amount of federal funding for a while, and even if she did, it would be at least a decade of political battles, EIRs, and neighbours fighting each other over parking space before the first shovel of dirt was dug.nnWe MUST grow our transit infrastructure. SF’s population is at a record peak, exceeding the historic 1950’s record. Count in illegal immigrants that aren’t part of the count and daily commuters from out of town, and we probably have 1.3M people during a weekday. nnWithout additional infrastructure, such as the Geary BRT, Van Ness BRT, and the Central Subway, our city won’t be able to handle the load from growth. With just the resources we have, our fair city simply does not have what it takes to grow into an even greater world class city for future generations.

more truthfully put, dysfunctional as the design is, u00a0we are stuck with it because backing out means years of waiting for another turn at the FTA corporate welfare (transit is the byproduct) trough. u00a0 The stations will have inadequately short platforms for the growth you cite, and the ## for the Market St transfer are u00a0bogus. u00a0u00a0

more truthfully put, dysfunctional as the design is, u00a0we are stuck with it because backing out means years of waiting for another turn at the FTA corporate welfare (transit is the byproduct) trough. u00a0 The stations will have inadequately short platforms for the growth you cite, and the ## for the Market St transfer are u00a0bogus. u00a0u00a0

I’m confused. I have heard that the subway either does not have the ridership to justify being built, and now you are saying the platform length isn’t long enough to support the growth. Both can’t be true.

u00a0Actually they are. u00a0The Central Subway is so expensive per mile that it needs high ridership to reduce the cost per passenger.yet, in the last several years as the estimate ballooned, station capacity was reduced to save expense. u00a0 So with increased population and perhaps the fabled extension further north, the subway will be maxed out at low net ridership. u00a0 Of course, if we are lucky, by then Muni might have bought a real signalling/train control system and more short trains could run per hour, but I would not take that bet. u00a0u00a0

u00a0Actually they are. u00a0The Central Subway is so expensive per mile that it needs high ridership to reduce the cost per passenger.yet, in the last several years as the estimate ballooned, station capacity was reduced to save expense. u00a0 So with increased population and perhaps the fabled extension further north, the subway will be maxed out at low net ridership. u00a0 Of course, if we are lucky, by then Muni might have bought a real signalling/train control system and more short trains could run per hour, but I would not take that bet. u00a0u00a0

I am having a hard time agreeing with you on the cost per passenger. You’ve been around in the transit scene for a while, so maybe you can help me out. Let’s say the price per passenger when the system was proposed 10 years ago was $1. It is now 2011, and the value of the dollar has dropped 82%*, so the price per passenger in 2011 dollars is $1.82. The cost hasn’t gone UP, the value of the money the public is spending has gone down. Given this fact, is the cost per passenger really that insane? (* based on average gold price of $300/oz in 2001 versus today’s close at $1650/oz).

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

So the $ value shifts account for some of the cost creep but not all. u00a0A media story within the last two years disclosed that they had neglected to plan/cost out a proper ventilation system for the Union Square Station. (Which would be millions cheaper if the station weren’t so deep.) u00a0 u00a0Of course, the deep design also makes escalator/elevator costs greater, and the list goes on. u00a0 Thus the actual tasks of the project have expanded as well as the $ costs for each. u00a0 If past examples around SF are any guide, the FTA application rider projections will be bogus at best. u00a0This does NOT u00a0mean that I don’t think we need subways or even this route if well designed. u00a0nA side note because it well be a decade before CS service happens even without the usual delays in any Muni project. u00a0 One of the defects in the current service on Stockton/4th is the long walk/’several street crossings from BART stairwells to/from NB 30s. u00a0Muni caved in to auto sabotage and moved the stop to north of Market only. u00a0u00a0nu00a0 u00a0nu00a0The bottom line is that although I expect the project to go forward, I am saddened that it is so badly conceived. u00a0 The lack of bellnouths for the Geary Subway (3-4 x the ridership) u00a0and a tunnel alignment which will NOT facilitate later addition is inexcusable. u00a0 All that said, assuming I am able, I’ll be on a train the day it opens.u00a0u00a0u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

I don’t agree. The transfers will average about 5 minutes – that is an average. Some might take a bit longer, others will be a bit faster depending on fitness, etc.. Many riders will walk on moving escalators, others won’t. u00a0

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.

In real dollars, LRV passengers cost the MTA about $3-$4 (you can look the exact number up in the Short Range Transit Plan on the MTA’s web site).u00a0 The trolley coach passengers (like the riders of the 30) cost the MTA under $2.u00a0 The existing proposal for the subway to nowhere is going to end up swapping the least expensive mode of transit the MTA operates for the most expensive (save for the cable cars which run about $7 per passenger trip I believe).nnGiven that, I’m not quite sure why there’s any confusion.u00a0 The short and long term realities aren’t necessarily identical.u00a0 There’s not enough density now to justify the expense PLUS the way the subway is designed now won’t ever allow for enough density to ever justify the operational expense.u00a0 As far as I’m concerned if you’re going to artificially cap passenger density at such low levels you shouldn’t go with the most expensive (to build and operate) mode of transit around.nnLook, I’d LOVE to see a subway along Stockton St, but only if it makes sense.u00a0 Going back and fixing mistakes is costly, and rarely happens.u00a0 Take a look at the SFSU stop and crossover tracks, the MMT, West Portal station, the million dollar Castro crossover, 4th and King, and so on.nnI just want to throw this out there: existing LRV coverage is so sparse that the MTA can afford to find a driver to do burn-in runs for the “new” PCCs during peak hours (~5:30-6).u00a0 So, yeah, while roughly one in two LRVs in revenue service on Taraval were being turned back at Sunset tonight, there was enough room for #1078 to putter around.u00a0 We don’t need more of /that/ style transit.