The head on this non-story is misleading. Unfortunately, there won't be any delay in the construction of this dumb project, unless opponents of the project litigate, which is an expensive, unlikely proposition with such a sketchy legal basis for litigation. The people, including the Save Muni folks, who really understand how bad this project is are just desperate to stop it and keep throwing stuff out there hoping something will.

The Central Subway began as a sop to Rose Pak and Chinatown merchants by Willie Brown to compensate for the loss of the Embarcadero Freeway. It's always been a political deal masquerading as a transportation project.

The unions like it, because all they care about is the jobs, not whether it makes sense as a transportation project. And if the unions like it the Democratic Party likes it, which means Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer will make sure the pork is delivered in time to save the project. 

The Central Subway has its ups and downs, but all in all, it will be a nice addition to San Francisco. Do I wish the money went toward a new rail line along Van Ness or Geary? I do.

But that isn't happening, and it's not worth wasting our time and our money, or the city's time and money, to continue this fight.
As an aside, I don't buy your union argument: the unions would get money no matter what part of muni infrastructure was built. If we built a brand new 2 billion dollar subway line along Van Ness, the unions would get that contract too.

Muni is seriously underfunded now, chronically in the red. As the Grand Jury report last year told us, Muni's maintenance budget has been depleted, making it increasingly difficut to keep its rolling stock in operation. All of this while the city is spending $123 million on the Central Subway, which, according to the MTA's own numbers, will actually cost the system more to operate, based on the projected ridership. There is no comparable transportation project on the horizon---a subway on Van Ness!---for SF and the unions. The unions love large boondoggles like the Central Subway and high-speed rail. The merits of the projects are a secondary consideration to them. It's all about jobs for their membership.

So really you're most concerned about the unions? Maybe we should outsource the project to Chinese labor.

No, my point is clearly that the unions represent nothing but another hog at the public trough.

Why do we even need a subway stop at Union Station? Can people really not walk three blocks away from Powell station to Union Square? What a waste of time, money and energy.  What this city needs is rail that connects the western section of the city to downtown, not a multimillion dollar project to save tourists from walking three blocks.

Powell station and the lines it connects to are for residents of the city and commuters who need to get between the business/commercial districts downtown, and their homes in the more residential-oriented districts. 

The Central Subway is not for us, it's to connect conventioneers and tourists to North Beach, Chinatown, Union Square, Moscone Ctr, and AT&T Park.

I'm assuming the line will be called the G-Guidebook.

Reminds me of the MUNI Culture Bus. Only, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive.

It's because the new line won't stop at Powell Station.  It kinda goes around it, more or less.  Hooking it straight into Powell doesn't work because the tracks cross at 90 degree angles, or something. This has been one of the (many) sticking points in the decades long arguments about this project.

Good to know. I guess I've always hoped for an extension of any kind of light rail that goes towards the Richmond and through the Western Addition which is currently only connected through pretty slow though frequent bus lines.

You mean other than the KLM and N lines which already connect downtown to the western burbs of the city?

 It's part of the city, not the suburbs.

Is it?

You obviously have never taken any of those buses. The N takes over an hour to get from Ocean Beach to downtown (a distance of only 7 miles), is vastly overcongested, and has the worst crash record of any line in the system.

When did we vote on the parking lot under Union Square?  Were the train tracks through Dolores Park ever voted on?

Those tracks have been there for a really, really long time. 

 Longer than the city charter?

 Probably.  SF Weekly cites 2008 amendments to the charter adopted in 1995.

 Interesting.... wonder what happened in 1995 that caused this change?

Also, remember all the fighting over the GG Park underground parking garage?  I don't recall this ever being brought up then.

The parking garage (or funding for it at least) was up for a vote, no? Altho... really... with short platforms and the resulting limited capacity I'd bet that the new subway to nowhere is more about parking than transit.

In SF, Parking >> Transit.

The list is long.

Actually, whoever decided that San Francisco should spend $1.7 billion on a subway that doesn't even have a stop at Market St is...

I walk that route every day. It's like a 60 second walk.

The Central Subway is just a Northern extension of the already existent T Third; which in fact does stop on Market Street at Powell station. You could essentially get to any other stop on Market extremely easily from this route as well.
centralsubwaysf.com/sit... I for one, am pro-Central Subway. Hopefully it gets built and it is eventually extended to further under-served areas like the Presido, Richmond, etc.

 Yeah... look how well the T worked out.  Reduced service on the K, L, M, and N lines.  Increased transit times from BVHP to downtown.  Reduced access to city college.  Sounds great, right?

Whoever wrote the provision in the charter that says that no structures with "non-recreational purposes" can be built in public parks unless approved by the voting public is the biggest fucking idiot on the planet. 

Next to Sue Hestor