Note that Muni cannot legally reduce cable car service; the city charter[1] mandates a minimum level of service, due to a 1947 ballot proposition[2]. As your link notes:
> Cable cars are a symbol of San Francisco, a major tourist attraction, and an indelible feature of the city’s cultural and historical landscape. [...] While SPUR doesn’t recommend changing SFMTA’s role in cable car operations, the agency may wish to explore options to generate additional revenue from the cable car system or seek supplemental support from the city’s budget, given the outsized expense of providing cable car service and the unique value this mode brings to the city as a cultural attraction. SFMTA already acknowledges the special status of cable cars by pricing them differently from other modes and by excluding cable car service from some of its passes and fare discount programs.
Apart from that, I suspect the per-service-hour figure is particularly misleading for cable cars and removing one cable car from the schedule would free up significantly less than $871: there is a significant fixed overhead (from power usage and cable wear) to having the system running at all, regardless of how many cars are on it.
> there is a significant fixed overhead (from power usage and cable wear) to having the system running at all, regardless of how many cars are on it.
Each cable car trip costs Muni about US$20. They charge about $8.
I was amazed when I first found out how the grip worked. I figured they clamped pulleys around the cables and then applied brakes to the pulley system. Nah. It's brutally simple. They squeeze two soft metal plates around the cable. The cable wears a groove in the plates during starting and stopping. Those plates are replaced every 3-4 days. The cables are replaced every few months.
Plus the thousand or so pulleys under the street need regular attention. The whole system has way too many friction points, which means intensive maintenance.
The PCC streetcars were a really good design, built for efficient operation with modest maintenance.
Their successor in San Francisco was built by Boeing Vertol, which totally botched it.[1] None of those cars are still around. The PCC cars roll on.
How about the reducing the F, which for a decent portion of its route down Market is directly above the underground KLM lines? The F is slower and lower capacity per car and stops at lights (and stops traffic when it needs to turn) in addition to apparently being more costly to run. I am clearly not a transit planner or traffic engineer, but it seems perfectly reasonable to run the F only from the Ferry Building to Fishermen's Wharf.
- People who want to go up market can transfer to the KLM at Embarcadero and if they're going to Castro (or maybe Church?) they may also get there faster.
- If tourists want to see an old-timey street car, they could ride one perhaps half the distance, only along the water with views Coit tower, and the eastern end of the line would be right by the Railway Museum anyway. And we could run perhaps half as many cars.
The part that runs on Market Street is the useful part. The part that runs along the Embarcadero isn’t useless, but it’s more seasonally useful. I’d rather see the old PCC cars replaced with a solid modern low-floor LRV using more standardized parts & aggressive transit policing to keep freeloaders from abusing the system. It is partially redundant with the subway, but if you’re going to have a surface street railway anyway, I’d rather it be optimized for local use.
You could pull the J up from underground too using the same low-floor LRV model chosen for the new F, having it turn at Church & Market rather than making an awkward diversion to Church & Duboce first.
I couldn’t find any documents on percentage of riders by payment method, but [1] says that in 2025 they actually got $14M more in fares than they budgeted for, partially because of “increased ridership that is paying full — or close to full — fares.”
Looking at the list of options on [2], your observed 1-in-5 Clipper taps seems within the realm of plausibility; there are a lot of ways to pay for Muni that aren’t visible to fellow passengers. In particular, out-of-towners who plan to ride Muni a lot are likely to get a MuniMobile (or, for the old-fashioned, paper) pass; and a ticket to any Chase Center event also counts as a Muni day pass. You also mentioned monthly passes (I know a lot of people who get them from their company’s commuter benefits), and there’s also transfers: not only are “single ride” fares valid for 2 hours, but if you board after 8:30pm you can’t tap again, because Clipper can’t handle it and you’ll be double charged!
I’m confused about for this assertion, for two reasons:
- My understanding is that OCSP stapling stops leaks, because the browser can get OCSP data from the server instead of needing to fetch it separately.
- Last I heard, Firefox was in the process of removing OCSP responder checks (precisely for privacy reasons) in favor of CRLite-based revocation checks—are you sure they didn’t remove whatever setting you’re referring to from the UI because it’s no longer relevant?
Yes, the modifications you need to support it are trivially obvious (literally just replace “4 bytes” with “8 bytes” everywhere in the spec) and have been implemented by a number of authors, some of which this page links to. I guess it’s nice that they’ve been “officially” acknowledged, though.
CDB is an interesting format, optimized for read-heavy write-rarely[1] random lookups on slow media. This isn’t a very common requirement these days, but it’s convenient for very specific use cases.
[1] You “update” by overwriting the entire file. This is remarkably fast and means that there’s no overhead/tracking for empty space, but it does mean you probably want this to be a fairly rare operation.
We have no idea whether the signal had a pattern because the only recording we have of it consists of averages over 10-second samples, so any modulation <10s (or patterns larger than the 72s recording) would have been lost. It could have been an AM broadcast of a herd of circus elephants playing the William Tell Overture for all we know.
> there are about 230 billion* links that need visiting
> * Thanks to arkiver on the Archive Team IRC for correcting this number.
Also when running the Warrior project you could see it iterating through the range. I don't have any logs handy since the project is finished but they looked a bit like
https://goo.gl/gEdpoS: 404 Not Found
https://goo.gl/gEdpoT: 404 Not Found
https://goo.gl/gEdpoU: 302 Found -> https://...
https://goo.gl/gEdpoV: 404 Not Found
All good and sorry. I get that there is a risk of this board turning into Reddit if too many whimsy/joke comments are permitted. It would indeed be bad if that happened. I'll be more watchful with my posts in the future.
(Tagged templates won’t help here because the bit in curly braces is an expression which is evaluated to a value first; you’d need some kind of macro system to get access to the original variable name at runtime.)
The judge’s report[1] lists twenty-eight different classes of failure, including:
- Confusing and buggy UI causing clerks to duplicate or mis-enter transactions
- Inventory getting “stuck” in branches after the product was discontinued; the attempt to remove it hid the inventory but caused its value to reappear on the books again each accounting period
- Byzantine failures during hardware replacement causing multiple transactions to be assigned the same ID and overwrite each other
- Fujitsu employees with unaudited write access to the production database making one-off modifications
- The point of sale system simply telling the clerk to give too much change back to the customer
There’s no “one bug” here; the main failure was that those responsible continued to dismiss any problems as users being either in error or outright malicious, despite massive amounts of evidence that the system had technical flaws. Better quality software would have reduced the problems, but no system is bug-free and in many cases very little effort was made to identify the root causes of problems, much less to prevent similar ones from happening again.
> Cable cars are a symbol of San Francisco, a major tourist attraction, and an indelible feature of the city’s cultural and historical landscape. [...] While SPUR doesn’t recommend changing SFMTA’s role in cable car operations, the agency may wish to explore options to generate additional revenue from the cable car system or seek supplemental support from the city’s budget, given the outsized expense of providing cable car service and the unique value this mode brings to the city as a cultural attraction. SFMTA already acknowledges the special status of cable cars by pricing them differently from other modes and by excluding cable car service from some of its passes and fare discount programs.
Apart from that, I suspect the per-service-hour figure is particularly misleading for cable cars and removing one cable car from the schedule would free up significantly less than $871: there is a significant fixed overhead (from power usage and cable wear) to having the system running at all, regardless of how many cars are on it.
1: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... 2: https://www.cablecarmuseum.org/60th_Anniversay.html
reply