Jump to content

Talk:Muni Metro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Colors of lines

Anyone know the line colors?? Georgia guy 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Muni Metro lines are not generally designated by color. Even on Muni maps the color schemes used for the different lines aren't consistent. --Jfruh 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! For most rail systems, color is the least ambiguous way to identify a line whose rail system is known. It always makes sense; others might not make sense in a particular way. Let's look at this line for example:

This line, as it says in the article, "was the fourth line to be built, notwithstanding its name". Thus, the "Line 5" is a designation that turns out to be official although a misnomer. I'm quite sure that any non-color way to name rail lines can have misnamed lines in it. Any rail lines that have color names that are misnomers (simply inconsistent with how they are colored on maps)?? Georgia guy 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. While I agee that colors are a good way to name transit lines, the fact is that NOBODY in SF refers to the various lines by color. There was a while where the K, L, and M lines (which pass through the Twin Peaks tunnel) were colored green on maps while the J and N lines (which don't) were colored pink. Now if look at the Muni maps linked to in the article, you can see that each line has its own color. However, these colors are only used on maps, not on the trains themselves, and terms like "red line" and "green line" are certainly never used. Muni could change them at any time. It would be inappropriate to use such terms in an article about them. --Jfruh 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
They actually are on some of the trains, and they use the colors on signs at the underground stations. The metros with the (Older?) line/destination signs that the operator has to turn into place use the same colors as for the lines as at the stations and on the newer maps. Octoferret 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


When the T Third Street line opens next year (April 13, 2007 for weekend only demonstration service, April 7, 2007 for full operation) the colors will be fixed with the same colors used on the trains and on the maps. The colors will be:

  • E Embarcadero - kind of grey/beige (the line will be a second historic line, not opening before 2008)
  • F Market & Wharves - yellow (not that much different from the J's orange, Muni Metro trains do not use the route, but just in case...)
  • S Shuttle - teal (the Castro Shuttle is being discontinued since the T-Third will run from Castro to Embarcadero as its route more often anyway, but for other shuttle uses)

Just to also note Muni's system of using letters, names and soon colors will be much easier for riders who will have three different mechanisms in combination to tell trains apart.

Official Muni Metro map

Why is it an issue to use the official map as opposed to the user-created one which Muni riders will never actually see on any Muni train? Mdreger

This is actually due to Wikipedia policy, specifically our fair use policy. Further elaboration on your talk page. —Kurykh 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I might add that the user-drawn map is actually somewhat more comprehensible than the official Muni version. The situation with the K/T is confusing enough, but the way Muni has chosen to illustrate it is particularly baffling. --Jfruh (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Expect to see a slightly revised and easier to understand version later this week. RickyCourtney 05:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You lied to us! It's still the same map! :) —Kurykh 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating stuff only of interest to rail foamers

I'm referring specifically to the much-tussled-over verbiage which is attempting to describe the gyrations of the names of the "interlinked" T & K lines in and out of the tunnel. I propose that we just remove this altogether, because nobody cares about this stuff except rail foamers ("anoraks" in the UK, I believe is the term). It just adds needless confusion to the article, being a consequence of the apparently clueless folks who design and run Muni. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I would probably qualify as a "foamer", I would argue that the weird situation with the K and T is precisely of interest to the casual rider. The foamers and rail nerds have probably already got their head around this weird situation, whereas the average person boarding an inbound K at St. Francis circle might find themselves baffled to suddenly be on an inbound T at Forest Hill, and might even get off, thinking that they were on the wrong train. I agree that it could be rewritten for greater clarity, but the situation in inherently confusing to those who least care about subway arcana. --Jfruh (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[Edit that was somehow clobbered in an edit conflict?!?] Regarding this matter as it now stands, the article says that the K & T lines "toggle" their identities upon entry into the tunnel: is this even true? This would mean, literally, that they flip their identities between the two states each time they enter. Can someone confirm or deny? In any case, this only serves to further obfuscate an already-murky matter. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I found the word "toggle" very confusing. Chris! my talk 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The current situation (beginning June 30, 2007) regarding the K and T lines is this: when the K enters West Portal Station (the west end of the tunnel, the K will change its signage to become the T, and it continues thereafter as the T line (out the other end of the tunnel, down the Embarcadero, past Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T/[some phone company] Park and Caltrain, and down Third Street). Going the other way, the T enters the east end of the tunnel (Inetpup labels it the "Ferry Portal"), changes signage to the K, and continues as the K line thereafter (into Embarcadero Station, through the tunnel, out West Portal, and on to Balboa Park). The problem is, how do we say all of this in the fewest words possible? —Kurykh 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum ILike2BeAnonymous, this design was actually the initial plan before they changed it to the one where the J was extended, the T ended at Castro, etc. (the plan used in the T unveiling). The latter plan became such a commuter nightmare that they had to change it back. So I won't call this plan "clueless"; this is one of the few times Muni actually did something that made sense. —Kurykh 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say this: if it can't be easily put into a small number of easily-understood words, then let's just drop it. It sounds, contrary to what was stated above, as if this really isn't of any interest to non-foamer types, as there's no chance of "getting on the wrong train", correct? From the description you just gave, it matters not (to the average rider) that the train's designation changes from K to T "inbound"; they'll still be able to get to Forest Hill, Castro, Montgomery or wherever. Ditto for the outbound direction. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong here.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I left something out. The K/T trains are signed as the T going towards downtown (going eastward), and are signed as the K going away from downtown (going westward). Remember, we're not writing just because we're railfans; we're writing for the average reader, and this isn't an easy concept to grasp when you are a tourist, you're standing at, say, Civic Center, and you don't know where to go (ok, this is excluding the possibility of asking the local station agent, but that's not the point). —Kurykh 00:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that we should state that the K and T are interlined/interlinked/interconnected, right? The nuances of the inside-the-tunnel thing, well... —Kurykh 00:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have pretty well taken care of this with my more recent edit; check it out.
Of course, that still leaves one more can o'worms concerning the T: the dreaded ... (wait for it) ... T-Castro "shuttles" ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
They're called the S Castro Shuttles, and they're at the end of the section, so there's no need to debate it. The shuttles have nothing to do with the T at all. —Kurykh 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

B Geary

Shouldn't the B Geary be added? I mean, it will be a metro line in the next 20-30 years? The color is most likely to be black because of the letter B, but, still, shouldn't it be on the page and the map? Goodshoped35110s 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The B Geary should be added when it becomes something more than a vague proposal. Its construction, even twenty or thirty years down the line, is by no mean remotely assured. The Geary bus rapid transit project, the construction of which will include submurged rails for a potential light-rail line, hasn't even happened yet. Even the construction of the Central Subway -- a necessary prerequisite to the B-Geary as envisioned -- isn't assured. And why would the color be black jsut because it's the B line? None of the other line colors correspond to the route letters. --Jfruh (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Track Gauge

The track gauge presumably is 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm). Right? A table if technical data would be relevant! Peter Horn 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

S Castro Shuttle

Is there any additional S Castro Shuttle to put here or on its page? I can't seem to find much of anything and the Muni site isn't very useful, they have it crammed in with stuff on the K Ingleside.

Octoferret 05:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Check around. You're bound to find something if you use Google. -Goodshoped 06:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pigeon Image Interesting?

Three weeks ago, while I was riding the metro, I saw something interesting. One pigeon in each car on the N. Three weeks later (today), I saw the exact same pigeon, and got this image. Is it appropriate if I would put this in the Muni Metro page and/or the Embarcadero Station article? -Goodshoped 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pour cold water on this, but how does this image in any way useful for the article? —Kurykh 05:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. It does seem interesting, though... -Goodshoped 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting because of "Unusual passengers"? -Goodshoped 06:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"Unusual" is extremely subjective in San Francisco. ;-) —Kurykh 06:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh. It seems rare, though. Of all the 10-14 years that I've ridden Muni, this was a first. ;) -Goodshoped 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be inappropriate for this article but it is a great image. I would suggest adding it to the Urban wildlife article which does not discuss pigeons in North America at all. --JeremiahJohnson (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

System length doesn't seem right

The reference given (http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rsrtp/documents/ShortRangeTransitPlanFy20062025-Web.pdf) does claim on page 161 of the PDF (labeled 140) that Muni has "66.1 revenue track-miles for light rail operation, including Metro and Historic service, plus an additional 5.4 miles when Third Street IOS goes into service," which makes 71.5 miles (though including the F line which is not included in this article.) This doesn't seem realistic to me since there are seven lines and the city of San Francisco is only about 7 miles across, so I doubt any line is longer than 10 miles and they share a lot of track. Possibly this is the sum of the lengths of every line, in which case it counts the Market Street subway several times, but even so it seems a little odd. Other parts of the Internet give Muni's system length as 29 miles (http://21stcenturyurbansolutions.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/bay-area-transit-efficiency-how-bart-caltrain-vta-light-rail-and-muni-metro-stack-up/) and 34 miles (http://www.impulsenc.com/html/proj_reference.htm), but I haven't been able to find a reliable reference. Can anyone figure this out? --platypeanArchcow (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Top Speed

The Top Speed reference article cites the top speed of the 2.27 mile Twin Peaks Tunnel at 35 mph. It does not cite the Muni Metro system-wide top speed. Should be removed or titled " Twin Peaks Tunnel Top Speed" until a reliable source of system-wide speed is found.76.233.202.198 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

K and M extensions to Balboa Park

When exactly were they extended? The K used to go to the turnaround by Phelan where the 15 and 49 now turn around and the M went to Broad & Plymouth. Octoferret 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in the 1970s. I would guess 1978. -Goodshoped 04:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It was April 1979 for the K-line extension (weekdays-only, at first) and August 1980 for the M line, and I've added the details into the two articles on those lines. SJ Morg (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muni Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muni_Metro/Archive_1&oldid=1136369803"