15 ms·

San Francisco Should Always Have a Subway Under Construction

175 points by capkutay 11y ago

lukas 11y ago
I would love to see the subways in SF improve but maybe self driving cars changes the calculus? Could this become a tealistic alternative to public transportation? I'm sure some people here have thought about this a lot more than I have - want to weigh in?
- masterj 11y ago
  Self driving cars still require a significant amount of surface area that could better be utilized for: housing, bike transit, pedestrian areas, parks. And though coordination by autonomous vehicles could cut down on highway congestion, speeds within the city are unlikely to match what a subway system could offer. You don't want cars rushing through your neighborhood at 60 mph, no matter if it's a machine or a human behind the wheel.
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    If gridlock is a major issue now, self-driving vehicles won't help in a major way, since you still need X square feet to move Y people (up to a maximum M, as defined by the size of a vehicle) Z miles. Pushing more individual cars onto buses would help in this situation, but not as much as a dedicated subway line that is less impacted by vehicular traffic flows. Self-driving cars would help by removing some drivers not paying attention and causing additional congestion (eg: not moving on green lights or causing accidents).
    - untog 11y ago
      In theory, intelligent self-driving buses could make a difference, though. Still less than subways though, of course.
  - davidw 11y ago
    Here's a nice image that makes your point: http://www.wearetraffic.org/sites/default/files/images/Bike_Car_Comparison.jpg http://www.wearetraffic.org/sites/default/files/images/Bike_...
  - afarrell 11y ago
    Self driving cars would allow minibus routes that just go between a neighborhood to a local grocery/retail center. This would make carless living more possible.
  - mkj 11y ago
    Would self riding bicycles help the situation perhaps?
- smileysteve 11y ago
  Yes, pools and lines are rapidly changing the options here and allow you to pay a premium for convenience and rapidity - to potentially reduce the number of cars on the road. These might be helping to encourage last mile usage, the questions are whether it's A) available B) successfully reducing car ridership.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  The problem there is density. If it's still mostly 1 or 2 people per vehicle you haven't really solved anything.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
    At first, sure. Eventually, though, self-driving cars really blur the line between public and private transportation. You could have a large network of self-driving cars that you simply hail on your phone and quickly pick you up. It won't look like a 4-door car, but more likely a small bus like you find in many parts of the world. People going in similar directions travel together, only picking up and dropping off with minimal interruption. In lower periods of demand, these are stored in lots with no wasted space as only a LIFO 'stack' is needed. Furthermore, self-driving cars could be programmed to move in caravans with minimal following distance and aerodynamic efficiency to boot. Not terribly helpful in an urban situation (probably some minor traffic density increase), but wonderful for commutes which could dramatically decrease density. So, you'd not only increase occupancy (easily 8 people in a car-sized footprint, presuming electric cars), you could also increase traffic density. All told, an order of magnitude capacity increase seems within reason, and in a reasonable amount of time. That said, I think subways are still a good investment for the time being.
    - TrevorJ 11y ago
      The thing is, all that stuff is a long ways off. Something to work towards for sure, but we still need mid-term solutions. Self driving cars that are empty and come pick you up will, if anything, lead to more traffic on the roads initially since now you've got more vehicles than people.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I tend to agree with this, and its nice hearing it from someone in a position of authority, but it is a minority view unfortunately. San Francisco has been poisoned by the "low hanging fruit" which is a series of "manageable" projects which are going to improve things but which turn out much more expensive and much less effective than the "big thinking" alternatives. And yes, I know it is easy to get tricked into comparing the projected cost of project A with the actual cost of project B (as project A would have had overrurns etc) but you can double or triple the proposed cost of some of the larger projects and not come close to the actual cost of some of the "simpler" projects. It isn't about cost, it is about willingness to embrace change and move forward.
- rz2k 11y ago
  I wonder if the right vocabulary is to talk about local optima, even though that isn't really the problem with being incrementalist as a rule. Or maybe once upon a time "paradigm shift", also not the right concept. Anyway, my point being that constant iteration or the use of heuristics have value, but it can also be useful to understand models, and occasionally take a break to think big about the direction you want to move in the long term, with the realization that many of the steps to get there will violate some pet heuristics.
  - gozo 11y ago
    You can't really have a paradigm shift without a foundation. Apple had a long history in software before the iPhone, SpaceX and Tesla have been leveraging the US long history of car and space industry etc. As far as I know the US does not have a very good foundation for public infrastructure projects nor the cooperation between public and private entities. What you need to do is, like China, buy the best proven technology currently available. Then after you've made that work, take all that knowledge and invent the next big thing.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  > San Francisco has been poisoned by the "low hanging fruit" which is a series of "manageable" projects which are going to improve things but which turn out much more expensive and much less effective than the "big thinking" alternatives. One could say the same thing about agile software development. :)
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Building more subways in SF is a much smarter use of money than the high speed "train to nowhere" that California is spending billions of dollars on.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  BART and Muni improvements are part of the billions being spent on improving existing local and intercity transit systems as part of the High-Speed Rail program you are complaining about. And the major population centers of California aren't, exactly, "nowhere".
  - haugstrup 11y ago
    This. Regional and state-wide transit is all connected. The high speed rail project also includes regional upgrades like the electrification of Caltrain. 2 hours and 40 minutes from downtown SF to downtown LA by train beats flying once you factor in transport to and from airports, security checks etc. Not to mention that SFO and LAX can't increase capacity to follow demand. The high speed rail project makes a ton of sense.
    - macintux 11y ago
      I keep waiting for train travel to fall into the TSA trap. I used to use Amtrak 'twixt Indy and Chicago a bit, and once in Chicago the TSA did set up for quick checks.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      In the case of the Acela, the electrification of the New Haven to Boston segment significantly sped up the non-Acela Northeast Regional service from Boston to New York. In fact, the ~2X price difference between the Regional and the Acela to save ~45 mins usually doesn't make sense when I'm paying out of my own pocket (or when the Acela doesn't run at a convenient time). I don't have a real opinion on California high-speed rail. It's certainly hugely expensive and probably depends on whether it makes sense for relatively price-insensitive business travelers as the Acela does.
oldmanjay 11y ago
Being the jewel of the Bay, San Francisco should aspire to something more interesting than near-constant subway construction. What if commuters to the peninsula were launched from glider bays at the top of the city skyscrapers, sent floating peacefully home with nary a cubic inch of congestion? It's probably brilliant and I just don't realize it yet.
- masterleep 11y ago
  What about personal transportation devices powered by bio-waste scraped off the sidewalk?
- pokstad 11y ago
  Relevant Southpark: http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153064/its-better-than-flying http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153064/its-better-than-flying
mentos 11y ago
I'd be interested to see SF experiment with increasing their tolls to reduce congestion.
rajacombinator 11y ago
SF could also, you know, get rid of stupid laws that prevent building more housing, and, I dunno, maybe try to get people to stop peeing and pooping on the sidewalks. But that's in a perfect world where the local govt cares or has been properly incentivized. (Bribed.)
- teacup50 11y ago
  Adding more housing doesn't solve density, reduce demand, or lower prices: https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/big-money-big-buildings-and-why-just-adding-supply-doesnt-work/ https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/big-money-big-bui... Adding more housing tends to exacerbate all the problems they're already facing.
  - scarmig 11y ago
    "… adding new capacity can no doubt release some of the upward pressure on rents" The rest is just an extended argument that the international rich are using real estate as a speculative investment vehicle/store of money. True, but that doesn't mean that adding housing exacerbates the problem of rich people bidding the prices of housing higher.
  - idlewords 11y ago
    Housing can mean a lot of different things. Adding luxury condos will not help. Adding SROs and other forms of housing for the currently homeless would definitely help.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Frankly, you have to add "luxury" housing, housing for regular people, and housing for low-income folks. Demanding that one form of construction be privileged over the others (or that no "luxury" housing be built, EVER) is a part of what's causing the housing construction logjam in the city.
    - jcnnghm 11y ago
      Where do you think the people that would live in new luxury condos go if there are no new luxury condos? Any chance they may buy up existing rental properties and evict long-time residents?
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
Is it just me, or is this obvious? Subways have proven over and over to be the most economical and least objectionable mode of mass transit wherever density is high enough to support them. Any place where subways are viable should have them - buses, trolleys, and light rail are not a substitute. It follows that any place with growing density needs to build more subways, even if that means eternal construction. Besides, subway construction is hard to get upset about, being mostly underground. It's far less disruptive than tearing up streets or surface level rail.
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  One of the things that absolutely blew my mind after moving to bay area were that there were people actively fighting expansion of the mass transit systems, and often successfully.
  - knorby 11y ago
    Mass transit projects in the bay end up being highly disruptive and costing billions a piece. I'd like to see more subways in terms of getting around, but there is plenty of logic in arguing for BRT over trains. I think most cities have that same problem right now, particularly when federal funds for such projects are hard to get or non-existent.
    - nerfhammer 11y ago
      Where I'm from people would be ecstatic about getting a subway station near where they live.
    - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
      >I'd like to see more subways in terms of getting around, but there is plenty of logic in arguing for BRT over trains BRT can't move nearly as many people as trains can. It would take many more buses to move the same amount of people. In a dense urban environment, trains make the most sense. In an area that's not dense, trains can allow density to happen. See the development of New York for instance. Plenty of trains went through fields at the time, and the railroads made huge amounts of money off of developing this now useful land (amongst other things). I suppose that's the real reason you get folks in the Bay Area to fight against trains. The other issue we have in the US is our infrastructure costs are way out of line with the world norm. If the Second Avenue Subway had similar per-mile costs to Tokyo subway extensions (or even the maglev they are building), the funding for the first phase would mostly get the subway the length of Manhattan.
natrius 11y ago
Effective ride-hailing services like UberPool and Lyft Line make congestion pricing feasible. Congestion pricing can banish traffic from the face of the planet. Our roads can move a certain number of vehicles per minute at their maximum throughput. When more cars attempt to access the road, throughput goes down. Set the price of driving on a road at the level that maximizes throughput. As prices go up, some people won't be able to afford to drive alone. Instead, they'll pick up paying passengers, or pay another driver for a ride. As more people desire to travel in San Francisco, the price will go up, and more people will share a van (or a bus!) to get where they need to go. Traffic won't come back. Today, San Franciscans pay for their commute by sacrificing time they could spend with their friends and family. Instead, we should pay by sacrificing personal space during our commutes. Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. We can triple the capacity of our roads by charging a price that keeps traffic moving.
- justizin 11y ago
  > Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. It terrifies me that you are serious. The best way to better utilize our streets is to dedicate more space for cycling, there is absolutely no way to get the same density in an automobile. Your idea also presents basically no solutions for people who don't have elasticity in their budget. "Sorry, grandma, you can't go to the doctor today because the market is readjusting the price of transit to optimize for throughput in the future, when you might be dead."
  - natrius 11y ago
    A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. I am a cyclist and I think there need to be safe routes to get everywhere in a city. Bikes aren't enough, though. The price doesn't adjust for future optimization. It adjusts for current optimization. Price-sensitive people like Grandma would go to the doctor for the same price she always does. She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure.
    - 11y ago
beachstartup 11y ago
LA always has a subway (technically, light rail) under construction. Been that way for about 30 years now.
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_(Los_Angeles_County)#Expansions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_(Los_Angeles_County...
pico303 11y ago
Isn't there a consideration of geological stability underneath San Francisco? I don't think much of the city could support tunneling underneath; large chunks are built on sand dunes and landfill. http://priceonomics.com/what-parts-of-san-francisco-are-built-on-land-fill/ http://priceonomics.com/what-parts-of-san-francisco-are-buil...
- luminiferous 11y ago
  The liquifaction susceptibility map shows that most of Market St is red. Seeing as that's where the existing BART tunnel is, I suspect it's not much of an issue.
  - tizzdogg 11y ago
    I think the bigger issue is all the hills. They are bedrock, so arnt an issue for liquifaction, but make any underground line much more difficult to construct. For rail to get most places in san francisco its not enough to just rip up the street and put tracks underneath, like was done along market street. You need serious tunneling. Thats why historically transit in SF was mostly cable cars, which were replaced over time by buses. Its much easier to go over the hills.
Balgair 11y ago
">>Making it easier and faster to approve transit projects." I moved out of CA, and man alive is it surprising how... corrupt... Caltrans is. I mean, really. In Denver we are building a rail line all the way out to the airport from downtown, something that I got to see start (2011) to finish (granted, spring 2016, but I have no doubts about it) for $1 billion total([2], projected cost) at ~8200 per foot. It's not a subway, so no digging, and the land is cheaper, but all the same. Something like this would be unimaginable in CA to take less than 15 years. The AirBart cost about $29,000 per foot and still costs $6 per ride [0] with a development time of ~30 years([1]data is suspicious though). Yes, it's elevated and in earthquake country, but my god, 29k a foot?! That's 3.5 times the cost per foot than in Denver. I honestly don't see it. Sure, the balance sheets are all likely out there in the public ledger, but honestly, I don't if I can trust them. In the end here, the author of this piece is right, but he misses the issue of corruption that plays into "Showing a willingness to think big." You can think big all you want, but if there is excessive need to 'grease wheels' to get something moving and built, then all the pie in the sky thinking in the world isn't going to do anything without the cash. [0]http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/controversial-bart-to-oakland-airport-connector-opens-but-questions-remain/Content?oid=2912859 http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/controversial-ba... [1]https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2014/news20140612-0 https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2014/news20140612-0 [2]
- spikels 11y ago
  $29k a foot is nothing! The Central Subway project currently under construction from Chinatown to the CalTrain station (the only major subway project built in SF in many decades) will cost $1.6 billion (assuming no cost overruns) to build and go 1.7 miles. That's around $190,000 per foot!
- crygin 11y ago
  That's 3.5 times the cost per foot than in Denver. Heh, given that land out there east of the Arsenal refuge is almost free and the cost of building an elevated structure in an earthquake zone... this comparison is the first time the AirBART replacement has sounded cheap!
- hapless 11y ago
swagv 11y ago
Scott is one of the few city supes with good, bold ideas. Unfortunately that will be his ticket out of the city and into state politics before long.
rdlecler1 11y ago
Subways could very well become obsolete by the time they are finished. uber-enabled driverless cars the size of a smart car could drive bumper to bumper door handle to door handle in their own lanes and massively improve transportation, especially for the last miles from door stat to door step. Save the money and speed up adoption of driverless cars and we'd be better off.
- mrpotatohead 11y ago
  Subways are real. Driverless cars are not.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sea2summit 11y ago
  I agree, but I'm not sure we can afford to wait ~5+ years for self driving cars; on the other hand that's probably how long it'll take to build more subways, at a minimum. Whatever is done it needs to be done immediately.
  - azinman2 11y ago
    Self driving cars are still subject to congestion in identical ways because they take up just as much space and need safe distances between cars. It also adds noise & pollution, not to mention the fact that the energy to build a car is really really large (and they don't last as long per total miles per person). As linked to above, see this gif: http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif
- duskwuff 11y ago
  Cars, driverless or otherwise, don't scale like subways do. A single BART train can easily carry 500 passengers, and can be loaded in a few minutes. Cars can't compete.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rdl 11y ago
While I'd love to live in a city with an effective government and great mass transit, I just don't have faith in SF city government specifically or in most local governments generally being able to accomplish the largest scale civil works projects successfully. While some kind of big master plan would, if executed well, produce a better result, I'd prefer to stick to smaller projects with reasonable deliverables which actually happen, and then hack together a less effective than ideal, but still better, end result. Arguing like this for all-or-nothing is a great way to get nothing, which makes me sad because SFBA transit is such shit today.
azinman2 11y ago
The biggest deal to me is that this was written by local politician Scott Weiner. Hopefully this idea circulates more around those in charge in SF.
- justizin 11y ago
  He's always good on transit issues..
- raldi 11y ago
  Wiener, not Weiner.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    And it's pronounced exactly like it is spelled. My inner five-year-old giggled for ten minutes the first time I heard Mr. Wiener introduce himself. Anyway, the guy seems like he's doing the right thing for the city.
  - azinman2 11y ago
    Ok
guelo 11y ago
Bart gets its operating and capital improvement money only from fares. A lot of the value that Bart creates by increasing property value around its stations is captured only by landlords, if it were able to capture some of that value it would be able to expand much quicker.
shawnps 11y ago
Meanwhile, in Tokyo: http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/info/map_a4ol.pdf http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/info/map_a4ol.pdf http://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/pdf/routemap_en.pdf http://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/pdf/routemap_en.pdf
- aninhumer 11y ago
  As awesome as the network is, I do feel like Tokyo has one of the worst subway map designs I've ever seen. All the station numbers make it far too busy and crowd out the actual route lines.
- ajmurmann 11y ago
  Japan had a interesting mix of private companies providing and competing in areas where public transit is actually profitable and the government providing it in areas where it won't be profitable. To me that's politics done right. The market is the strongest force you can use if it works in your favor. But it's key to understand when it won't. Too bad that on the US that decision is usually driven by ideology rather than practical thought.
rayiner 11y ago
The big takeaway from all these stories is that there's no solution to these problems. To address its housing and transit issues, San Francisco should have changed its zoning and construction plans decades ago. Now, nothing it can do will meaningfully address the problem in any relevant timescale.
- hugh4 11y ago
  Why not just leave San Francisco basically as it is? The city works okay right now. You can get around it reasonably well. Housing and transport are only a problem if you're going to keep trying to cram more people in there. That's silly. Part of what makes San Francisco one of the USA's most appealing cities is that it hasn't expanded all that much in the last eighty years or so -- due to its unique geography which prevents outward expansion. (The population in 1930 was 634,000, in 2010 it was 805,000.)
SCAQTony 11y ago
San Francisco, as well as L.A., are located on one of the most active fault lines in the USA. http://www.wired.com/2008/10/five-us-earthqu/ http://www.wired.com/2008/10/five-us-earthqu/ Even Tokyo has most of it's trains above ground. See Yamanote line with 29 stations versus the 16 cumulative underground stations that both the Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit and Saitama Rapid Railway Line serve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway Also of note, the New Oakland Bridge that took years to build, went seriously over budget, included a very disappointing design flaw. This bridge was mostly paid for by the State of California not San Francisco by itself. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-How-a-landmark-became-a-6021955.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-... If San Francisco wants to have dozens of miles dug beneath its surface ignoring the potential of a "black swan" earthquake event then perhaps San Francisco and not the state of California should pay for it. Or more accurately, San Diego county, Orange County and Los Angeles county should NOT have to pay for it. We love you San Francisco but you're not that awesome.
- m_mueller 11y ago
  I find it a bit bothersome when you start to compare SF to Tokyo. The fact that its subway only serves a bit more than 20% of Tokyo's rail traffic, yet at the same time is world top at daily passenger-kms, shows just how massive Tokyo's public transport network is. Earthquake safety have nothing to do with this, it's simply the ability and will to invest in public transport on a massive scale that's proportionate to population growth. I mean just look at table [1]. Japanese do a factor of 25 times the rail passenger kms per person compared to Americans. And I don't think Americans have a much shorter commute. Another way to put it, Switzerland, in total, with just 8M inhabitants, does 1.8x the passenger rail traffic as the whole US [2]. Just think about that for a moment. It doesn't matter whether you put it under ground, above ground or through somebody's swimming pool - any rail is progress in the US. Edit: Another fun list: The world's 50 busiest train stations. Guess how many are Japanese [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country#Passenger_km_per_head_of_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_count... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country#Passenger-km_of_rail_transport_per_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_count... [3] http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/30/the-51-busiest-train-stations-in-the-world-all-but-6-located-in-japan/ http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/30/the-51-busiest-train-s...
machinshin_ 11y ago
Why? 1/2 the city is gonna be underwater by 2050, right?
hugh4 11y ago
I reject the premise that San Francisco should be planning for an ever-increasing population. At some point I think that San Francisco should look at itself and say "Hey, we're a small, earthquake-prone hilly penninsula, we can't expand outwards. Traffic flow is constrained by planning decisions made a long time ago. We've got a pretty good quality of life as it is, and lots of nice historic buildings. Let's just put a lid on it and declare we're basically full". Many of the nicest cities in Europe are ones where at some point in the past they've decided to stop building in the historic city centre and just leave things as they were at some particular point in time. If anything I think San Francisco needs fewer people. San Francisco should focus on quality of residents, not quantity.
- reality_czech 11y ago
  San Francisco basically has done exactly what you suggest. Most city residents don't believe that anything should be built (or if it should, it definitely shouldn't be in their neighborhood.) http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_growing_way_faster_than_its_housing_stock.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_g... As a consequence, it is "focusing on quality of residents, not quantity" (the "quality" that they're looking for is the green stuff).
  - hugh4 11y ago
    And San Francisco is a nice place. So what's the problem? Sure, not everyone who wants to live there can afford to live there, but that's always the way it is in desirable places, otherwise we'd all live in Vanuatu or something.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      San Francisco is a nice place. It will probably get nicer, as more and more grubby natives are replaced by nice presentable dot-commers. It's just that some people object to that process. Including, seemingly, people who live and vote in SF. They believe they can have a city that limits overall housing supply while simultaneously growing housing supply for the homeless, for the working poor, and for everyone else. San Francisco is a nice place.
atarian 11y ago
BART is currently being extended from Fremont to San Jose: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5782566 http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay... What's stopping an extension from San Jose to Millbrae?
- capkutay 11y ago
  Peninsula voters are somewhat allergic to inbound public transportation from the East Bay for whatever reason.
tempodox 11y ago
I can't wait for the day when car travel for personal transportation in cities is simply forbidden.
stretchwithme 11y ago
I disagree, because robotic transportation is going to make public transportation obsolete long before the debt acquired is paid off. And by then, robotic construction and material will have advanced so much that it will be much cheaper to build underground in the future than it is now. But underground is definitely the way to go for transportation, even in earthquake country. The surface should be quiet and safe, our streets converted to bike paths and gardens. So lets at least make sure that underground construction could also accommodate vehicles other than trains. Because all that track will eventually be ripped out when we are liberated from the tranny of the train schedule.
- chipsy 11y ago
  Public transportation will take up the same advances as private. Eventually. Private is going to jump on that stuff first, of course. Robocars constitute a percentage improvement at the surface, but don't overcome inherent capacity/land-use/energy tradeoffs between a packed subway car and a congested highway. You cannot get around the problem of automobiles using more space. [0] You will have robocars, but also robobuses and robotrains. This is a "all over, everywhere, better" improvement, not a "this one wins and crushes the others." Flexibility is important - the city is making some progress on bike paths and can continue doing much better still. Furthermore, better architecture, land use, and future lifestyle changes hold the potential to keep density at a higher average level while improving the feeling of street life to be more like the "peaceful suburban" ideal - walkable, yet quiet and non-disruptive. Framing transportation as a land-use problem - something built up from prior decisions about what real estate to build and where to build it in order to minimize average trip times and potential disruptions - rather than an engineering exercise of making as many roads and rails and tunnels and bridges as you can so that every vehicle may race along at 200 MPH for the smallest errand - drastically changes what you can do and the budget you can accomplish it with, which makes it more likely to be realized in our lifetimes. That said, I agree with the article. SF has fallen far behind its housing demand, and the lack of a "virtuous cycle" of transit projects to encourage development in outlying neighborhoods shares some blame in that. It should not be the case that it's harder to go between downtown and the Richmond than to make the same trip to Oakland. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/
sutro 11y ago
http://m.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/covering-their-tracks-the-central-subway-project-buries-millions-in-a-deep-dark-place/Content?oid=2949067 http://m.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/covering-their-tracks-the...
simonjgreen 11y ago
"Unprecedented growth"... http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_growth1.html http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_growth1.html

175 points by capkutay 11y ago

lukas 11y ago

I would love to see the subways in SF improve but maybe self driving cars changes the calculus? Could this become a tealistic alternative to public transportation? I'm sure some people here have thought about this a lot more than I have - want to weigh in?

masterj 11y ago
Self driving cars still require a significant amount of surface area that could better be utilized for: housing, bike transit, pedestrian areas, parks. And though coordination by autonomous vehicles could cut down on highway congestion, speeds within the city are unlikely to match what a subway system could offer. You don't want cars rushing through your neighborhood at 60 mph, no matter if it's a machine or a human behind the wheel.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  If gridlock is a major issue now, self-driving vehicles won't help in a major way, since you still need X square feet to move Y people (up to a maximum M, as defined by the size of a vehicle) Z miles. Pushing more individual cars onto buses would help in this situation, but not as much as a dedicated subway line that is less impacted by vehicular traffic flows. Self-driving cars would help by removing some drivers not paying attention and causing additional congestion (eg: not moving on green lights or causing accidents).
  - untog 11y ago
    In theory, intelligent self-driving buses could make a difference, though. Still less than subways though, of course.
- davidw 11y ago
  Here's a nice image that makes your point: http://www.wearetraffic.org/sites/default/files/images/Bike_Car_Comparison.jpg http://www.wearetraffic.org/sites/default/files/images/Bike_...
- afarrell 11y ago
  Self driving cars would allow minibus routes that just go between a neighborhood to a local grocery/retail center. This would make carless living more possible.
- mkj 11y ago
  Would self riding bicycles help the situation perhaps?
smileysteve 11y ago
Yes, pools and lines are rapidly changing the options here and allow you to pay a premium for convenience and rapidity - to potentially reduce the number of cars on the road. These might be helping to encourage last mile usage, the questions are whether it's A) available B) successfully reducing car ridership.
TrevorJ 11y ago
The problem there is density. If it's still mostly 1 or 2 people per vehicle you haven't really solved anything.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 11y ago
  At first, sure. Eventually, though, self-driving cars really blur the line between public and private transportation. You could have a large network of self-driving cars that you simply hail on your phone and quickly pick you up. It won't look like a 4-door car, but more likely a small bus like you find in many parts of the world. People going in similar directions travel together, only picking up and dropping off with minimal interruption. In lower periods of demand, these are stored in lots with no wasted space as only a LIFO 'stack' is needed. Furthermore, self-driving cars could be programmed to move in caravans with minimal following distance and aerodynamic efficiency to boot. Not terribly helpful in an urban situation (probably some minor traffic density increase), but wonderful for commutes which could dramatically decrease density. So, you'd not only increase occupancy (easily 8 people in a car-sized footprint, presuming electric cars), you could also increase traffic density. All told, an order of magnitude capacity increase seems within reason, and in a reasonable amount of time. That said, I think subways are still a good investment for the time being.
  - TrevorJ 11y ago
    The thing is, all that stuff is a long ways off. Something to work towards for sure, but we still need mid-term solutions. Self driving cars that are empty and come pick you up will, if anything, lead to more traffic on the roads initially since now you've got more vehicles than people.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I tend to agree with this, and its nice hearing it from someone in a position of authority, but it is a minority view unfortunately. San Francisco has been poisoned by the "low hanging fruit" which is a series of "manageable" projects which are going to improve things but which turn out much more expensive and much less effective than the "big thinking" alternatives. And yes, I know it is easy to get tricked into comparing the projected cost of project A with the actual cost of project B (as project A would have had overrurns etc) but you can double or triple the proposed cost of some of the larger projects and not come close to the actual cost of some of the "simpler" projects. It isn't about cost, it is about willingness to embrace change and move forward.

rz2k 11y ago
I wonder if the right vocabulary is to talk about local optima, even though that isn't really the problem with being incrementalist as a rule. Or maybe once upon a time "paradigm shift", also not the right concept. Anyway, my point being that constant iteration or the use of heuristics have value, but it can also be useful to understand models, and occasionally take a break to think big about the direction you want to move in the long term, with the realization that many of the steps to get there will violate some pet heuristics.
- gozo 11y ago
  You can't really have a paradigm shift without a foundation. Apple had a long history in software before the iPhone, SpaceX and Tesla have been leveraging the US long history of car and space industry etc. As far as I know the US does not have a very good foundation for public infrastructure projects nor the cooperation between public and private entities. What you need to do is, like China, buy the best proven technology currently available. Then after you've made that work, take all that knowledge and invent the next big thing.
cpeterso 11y ago
> San Francisco has been poisoned by the "low hanging fruit" which is a series of "manageable" projects which are going to improve things but which turn out much more expensive and much less effective than the "big thinking" alternatives. One could say the same thing about agile software development. :)

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

Building more subways in SF is a much smarter use of money than the high speed "train to nowhere" that California is spending billions of dollars on.

dragonwriter 11y ago
BART and Muni improvements are part of the billions being spent on improving existing local and intercity transit systems as part of the High-Speed Rail program you are complaining about. And the major population centers of California aren't, exactly, "nowhere".
- haugstrup 11y ago
  This. Regional and state-wide transit is all connected. The high speed rail project also includes regional upgrades like the electrification of Caltrain. 2 hours and 40 minutes from downtown SF to downtown LA by train beats flying once you factor in transport to and from airports, security checks etc. Not to mention that SFO and LAX can't increase capacity to follow demand. The high speed rail project makes a ton of sense.
  - macintux 11y ago
    I keep waiting for train travel to fall into the TSA trap. I used to use Amtrak 'twixt Indy and Chicago a bit, and once in Chicago the TSA did set up for quick checks.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    In the case of the Acela, the electrification of the New Haven to Boston segment significantly sped up the non-Acela Northeast Regional service from Boston to New York. In fact, the ~2X price difference between the Regional and the Acela to save ~45 mins usually doesn't make sense when I'm paying out of my own pocket (or when the Acela doesn't run at a convenient time). I don't have a real opinion on California high-speed rail. It's certainly hugely expensive and probably depends on whether it makes sense for relatively price-insensitive business travelers as the Acela does.

oldmanjay 11y ago

Being the jewel of the Bay, San Francisco should aspire to something more interesting than near-constant subway construction. What if commuters to the peninsula were launched from glider bays at the top of the city skyscrapers, sent floating peacefully home with nary a cubic inch of congestion? It's probably brilliant and I just don't realize it yet.

masterleep 11y ago
What about personal transportation devices powered by bio-waste scraped off the sidewalk?
pokstad 11y ago
Relevant Southpark: http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153064/its-better-than-flying http://southpark.cc.com/clips/153064/its-better-than-flying

mentos 11y ago

I'd be interested to see SF experiment with increasing their tolls to reduce congestion.

rajacombinator 11y ago

SF could also, you know, get rid of stupid laws that prevent building more housing, and, I dunno, maybe try to get people to stop peeing and pooping on the sidewalks. But that's in a perfect world where the local govt cares or has been properly incentivized. (Bribed.)

teacup50 11y ago
Adding more housing doesn't solve density, reduce demand, or lower prices: https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/big-money-big-buildings-and-why-just-adding-supply-doesnt-work/ https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/big-money-big-bui... Adding more housing tends to exacerbate all the problems they're already facing.
- scarmig 11y ago
  "… adding new capacity can no doubt release some of the upward pressure on rents" The rest is just an extended argument that the international rich are using real estate as a speculative investment vehicle/store of money. True, but that doesn't mean that adding housing exacerbates the problem of rich people bidding the prices of housing higher.
- idlewords 11y ago
  Housing can mean a lot of different things. Adding luxury condos will not help. Adding SROs and other forms of housing for the currently homeless would definitely help.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Frankly, you have to add "luxury" housing, housing for regular people, and housing for low-income folks. Demanding that one form of construction be privileged over the others (or that no "luxury" housing be built, EVER) is a part of what's causing the housing construction logjam in the city.
  - jcnnghm 11y ago
    Where do you think the people that would live in new luxury condos go if there are no new luxury condos? Any chance they may buy up existing rental properties and evict long-time residents?

thescriptkiddie 11y ago

Is it just me, or is this obvious? Subways have proven over and over to be the most economical and least objectionable mode of mass transit wherever density is high enough to support them. Any place where subways are viable should have them - buses, trolleys, and light rail are not a substitute. It follows that any place with growing density needs to build more subways, even if that means eternal construction. Besides, subway construction is hard to get upset about, being mostly underground. It's far less disruptive than tearing up streets or surface level rail.

nerfhammer 11y ago
One of the things that absolutely blew my mind after moving to bay area were that there were people actively fighting expansion of the mass transit systems, and often successfully.
- knorby 11y ago
  Mass transit projects in the bay end up being highly disruptive and costing billions a piece. I'd like to see more subways in terms of getting around, but there is plenty of logic in arguing for BRT over trains. I think most cities have that same problem right now, particularly when federal funds for such projects are hard to get or non-existent.
  - nerfhammer 11y ago
    Where I'm from people would be ecstatic about getting a subway station near where they live.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
    >I'd like to see more subways in terms of getting around, but there is plenty of logic in arguing for BRT over trains BRT can't move nearly as many people as trains can. It would take many more buses to move the same amount of people. In a dense urban environment, trains make the most sense. In an area that's not dense, trains can allow density to happen. See the development of New York for instance. Plenty of trains went through fields at the time, and the railroads made huge amounts of money off of developing this now useful land (amongst other things). I suppose that's the real reason you get folks in the Bay Area to fight against trains. The other issue we have in the US is our infrastructure costs are way out of line with the world norm. If the Second Avenue Subway had similar per-mile costs to Tokyo subway extensions (or even the maglev they are building), the funding for the first phase would mostly get the subway the length of Manhattan.

natrius 11y ago

Effective ride-hailing services like UberPool and Lyft Line make congestion pricing feasible. Congestion pricing can banish traffic from the face of the planet. Our roads can move a certain number of vehicles per minute at their maximum throughput. When more cars attempt to access the road, throughput goes down. Set the price of driving on a road at the level that maximizes throughput. As prices go up, some people won't be able to afford to drive alone. Instead, they'll pick up paying passengers, or pay another driver for a ride. As more people desire to travel in San Francisco, the price will go up, and more people will share a van (or a bus!) to get where they need to go. Traffic won't come back. Today, San Franciscans pay for their commute by sacrificing time they could spend with their friends and family. Instead, we should pay by sacrificing personal space during our commutes. Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. We can triple the capacity of our roads by charging a price that keeps traffic moving.

justizin 11y ago
> Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. It terrifies me that you are serious. The best way to better utilize our streets is to dedicate more space for cycling, there is absolutely no way to get the same density in an automobile. Your idea also presents basically no solutions for people who don't have elasticity in their budget. "Sorry, grandma, you can't go to the doctor today because the market is readjusting the price of transit to optimize for throughput in the future, when you might be dead."
- natrius 11y ago
  A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. I am a cyclist and I think there need to be safe routes to get everywhere in a city. Bikes aren't enough, though. The price doesn't adjust for future optimization. It adjusts for current optimization. Price-sensitive people like Grandma would go to the doctor for the same price she always does. She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure.
  - 11y ago

beachstartup 11y ago

LA always has a subway (technically, light rail) under construction. Been that way for about 30 years now.

nerfhammer 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_(Los_Angeles_County)#Expansions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_(Los_Angeles_County...

pico303 11y ago

Isn't there a consideration of geological stability underneath San Francisco? I don't think much of the city could support tunneling underneath; large chunks are built on sand dunes and landfill. http://priceonomics.com/what-parts-of-san-francisco-are-built-on-land-fill/ http://priceonomics.com/what-parts-of-san-francisco-are-buil...

luminiferous 11y ago
The liquifaction susceptibility map shows that most of Market St is red. Seeing as that's where the existing BART tunnel is, I suspect it's not much of an issue.
- tizzdogg 11y ago
  I think the bigger issue is all the hills. They are bedrock, so arnt an issue for liquifaction, but make any underground line much more difficult to construct. For rail to get most places in san francisco its not enough to just rip up the street and put tracks underneath, like was done along market street. You need serious tunneling. Thats why historically transit in SF was mostly cable cars, which were replaced over time by buses. Its much easier to go over the hills.

Balgair 11y ago

">>Making it easier and faster to approve transit projects." I moved out of CA, and man alive is it surprising how... corrupt... Caltrans is. I mean, really. In Denver we are building a rail line all the way out to the airport from downtown, something that I got to see start (2011) to finish (granted, spring 2016, but I have no doubts about it) for $1 billion total([2], projected cost) at ~8200 per foot. It's not a subway, so no digging, and the land is cheaper, but all the same. Something like this would be unimaginable in CA to take less than 15 years. The AirBart cost about $29,000 per foot and still costs $6 per ride [0] with a development time of ~30 years([1]data is suspicious though). Yes, it's elevated and in earthquake country, but my god, 29k a foot?! That's 3.5 times the cost per foot than in Denver. I honestly don't see it. Sure, the balance sheets are all likely out there in the public ledger, but honestly, I don't if I can trust them. In the end here, the author of this piece is right, but he misses the issue of corruption that plays into "Showing a willingness to think big." You can think big all you want, but if there is excessive need to 'grease wheels' to get something moving and built, then all the pie in the sky thinking in the world isn't going to do anything without the cash. [0]http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/controversial-bart-to-oakland-airport-connector-opens-but-questions-remain/Content?oid=2912859 http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/controversial-ba... [1]https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2014/news20140612-0 https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2014/news20140612-0 [2]

spikels 11y ago
$29k a foot is nothing! The Central Subway project currently under construction from Chinatown to the CalTrain station (the only major subway project built in SF in many decades) will cost $1.6 billion (assuming no cost overruns) to build and go 1.7 miles. That's around $190,000 per foot!
crygin 11y ago
That's 3.5 times the cost per foot than in Denver. Heh, given that land out there east of the Arsenal refuge is almost free and the cost of building an elevated structure in an earthquake zone... this comparison is the first time the AirBART replacement has sounded cheap!
hapless 11y ago

swagv 11y ago

Scott is one of the few city supes with good, bold ideas. Unfortunately that will be his ticket out of the city and into state politics before long.

rdlecler1 11y ago

Subways could very well become obsolete by the time they are finished. uber-enabled driverless cars the size of a smart car could drive bumper to bumper door handle to door handle in their own lanes and massively improve transportation, especially for the last miles from door stat to door step. Save the money and speed up adoption of driverless cars and we'd be better off.

mrpotatohead 11y ago
Subways are real. Driverless cars are not.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sea2summit 11y ago
I agree, but I'm not sure we can afford to wait ~5+ years for self driving cars; on the other hand that's probably how long it'll take to build more subways, at a minimum. Whatever is done it needs to be done immediately.
- azinman2 11y ago
  Self driving cars are still subject to congestion in identical ways because they take up just as much space and need safe distances between cars. It also adds noise & pollution, not to mention the fact that the energy to build a car is really really large (and they don't last as long per total miles per person). As linked to above, see this gif: http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif
duskwuff 11y ago
Cars, driverless or otherwise, don't scale like subways do. A single BART train can easily carry 500 passengers, and can be loaded in a few minutes. Cars can't compete.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rdl 11y ago

While I'd love to live in a city with an effective government and great mass transit, I just don't have faith in SF city government specifically or in most local governments generally being able to accomplish the largest scale civil works projects successfully. While some kind of big master plan would, if executed well, produce a better result, I'd prefer to stick to smaller projects with reasonable deliverables which actually happen, and then hack together a less effective than ideal, but still better, end result. Arguing like this for all-or-nothing is a great way to get nothing, which makes me sad because SFBA transit is such shit today.

azinman2 11y ago

The biggest deal to me is that this was written by local politician Scott Weiner. Hopefully this idea circulates more around those in charge in SF.

justizin 11y ago
He's always good on transit issues..
raldi 11y ago
Wiener, not Weiner.
- simoncion 11y ago
  And it's pronounced exactly like it is spelled. My inner five-year-old giggled for ten minutes the first time I heard Mr. Wiener introduce himself. Anyway, the guy seems like he's doing the right thing for the city.
- azinman2 11y ago
  Ok

guelo 11y ago

Bart gets its operating and capital improvement money only from fares. A lot of the value that Bart creates by increasing property value around its stations is captured only by landlords, if it were able to capture some of that value it would be able to expand much quicker.

shawnps 11y ago

Meanwhile, in Tokyo: http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/info/map_a4ol.pdf http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/info/map_a4ol.pdf http://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/pdf/routemap_en.pdf http://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/pdf/routemap_en.pdf

aninhumer 11y ago
As awesome as the network is, I do feel like Tokyo has one of the worst subway map designs I've ever seen. All the station numbers make it far too busy and crowd out the actual route lines.
ajmurmann 11y ago
Japan had a interesting mix of private companies providing and competing in areas where public transit is actually profitable and the government providing it in areas where it won't be profitable. To me that's politics done right. The market is the strongest force you can use if it works in your favor. But it's key to understand when it won't. Too bad that on the US that decision is usually driven by ideology rather than practical thought.

rayiner 11y ago

The big takeaway from all these stories is that there's no solution to these problems. To address its housing and transit issues, San Francisco should have changed its zoning and construction plans decades ago. Now, nothing it can do will meaningfully address the problem in any relevant timescale.

hugh4 11y ago
Why not just leave San Francisco basically as it is? The city works okay right now. You can get around it reasonably well. Housing and transport are only a problem if you're going to keep trying to cram more people in there. That's silly. Part of what makes San Francisco one of the USA's most appealing cities is that it hasn't expanded all that much in the last eighty years or so -- due to its unique geography which prevents outward expansion. (The population in 1930 was 634,000, in 2010 it was 805,000.)

SCAQTony 11y ago

San Francisco, as well as L.A., are located on one of the most active fault lines in the USA. http://www.wired.com/2008/10/five-us-earthqu/ http://www.wired.com/2008/10/five-us-earthqu/ Even Tokyo has most of it's trains above ground. See Yamanote line with 29 stations versus the 16 cumulative underground stations that both the Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit and Saitama Rapid Railway Line serve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway Also of note, the New Oakland Bridge that took years to build, went seriously over budget, included a very disappointing design flaw. This bridge was mostly paid for by the State of California not San Francisco by itself. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-How-a-landmark-became-a-6021955.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-... If San Francisco wants to have dozens of miles dug beneath its surface ignoring the potential of a "black swan" earthquake event then perhaps San Francisco and not the state of California should pay for it. Or more accurately, San Diego county, Orange County and Los Angeles county should NOT have to pay for it. We love you San Francisco but you're not that awesome.

m_mueller 11y ago
I find it a bit bothersome when you start to compare SF to Tokyo. The fact that its subway only serves a bit more than 20% of Tokyo's rail traffic, yet at the same time is world top at daily passenger-kms, shows just how massive Tokyo's public transport network is. Earthquake safety have nothing to do with this, it's simply the ability and will to invest in public transport on a massive scale that's proportionate to population growth. I mean just look at table [1]. Japanese do a factor of 25 times the rail passenger kms per person compared to Americans. And I don't think Americans have a much shorter commute. Another way to put it, Switzerland, in total, with just 8M inhabitants, does 1.8x the passenger rail traffic as the whole US [2]. Just think about that for a moment. It doesn't matter whether you put it under ground, above ground or through somebody's swimming pool - any rail is progress in the US. Edit: Another fun list: The world's 50 busiest train stations. Guess how many are Japanese [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country#Passenger_km_per_head_of_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_count... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_country#Passenger-km_of_rail_transport_per_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_count... [3] http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/30/the-51-busiest-train-stations-in-the-world-all-but-6-located-in-japan/ http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/30/the-51-busiest-train-s...

machinshin_ 11y ago

Why? 1/2 the city is gonna be underwater by 2050, right?

hugh4 11y ago

I reject the premise that San Francisco should be planning for an ever-increasing population. At some point I think that San Francisco should look at itself and say "Hey, we're a small, earthquake-prone hilly penninsula, we can't expand outwards. Traffic flow is constrained by planning decisions made a long time ago. We've got a pretty good quality of life as it is, and lots of nice historic buildings. Let's just put a lid on it and declare we're basically full". Many of the nicest cities in Europe are ones where at some point in the past they've decided to stop building in the historic city centre and just leave things as they were at some particular point in time. If anything I think San Francisco needs fewer people. San Francisco should focus on quality of residents, not quantity.

reality_czech 11y ago
San Francisco basically has done exactly what you suggest. Most city residents don't believe that anything should be built (or if it should, it definitely shouldn't be in their neighborhood.) http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_growing_way_faster_than_its_housing_stock.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_g... As a consequence, it is "focusing on quality of residents, not quantity" (the "quality" that they're looking for is the green stuff).
- hugh4 11y ago
  And San Francisco is a nice place. So what's the problem? Sure, not everyone who wants to live there can afford to live there, but that's always the way it is in desirable places, otherwise we'd all live in Vanuatu or something.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    San Francisco is a nice place. It will probably get nicer, as more and more grubby natives are replaced by nice presentable dot-commers. It's just that some people object to that process. Including, seemingly, people who live and vote in SF. They believe they can have a city that limits overall housing supply while simultaneously growing housing supply for the homeless, for the working poor, and for everyone else. San Francisco is a nice place.

atarian 11y ago

BART is currently being extended from Fremont to San Jose: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5782566 http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay... What's stopping an extension from San Jose to Millbrae?

capkutay 11y ago
Peninsula voters are somewhat allergic to inbound public transportation from the East Bay for whatever reason.

tempodox 11y ago

I can't wait for the day when car travel for personal transportation in cities is simply forbidden.

stretchwithme 11y ago

I disagree, because robotic transportation is going to make public transportation obsolete long before the debt acquired is paid off. And by then, robotic construction and material will have advanced so much that it will be much cheaper to build underground in the future than it is now. But underground is definitely the way to go for transportation, even in earthquake country. The surface should be quiet and safe, our streets converted to bike paths and gardens. So lets at least make sure that underground construction could also accommodate vehicles other than trains. Because all that track will eventually be ripped out when we are liberated from the tranny of the train schedule.

chipsy 11y ago
Public transportation will take up the same advances as private. Eventually. Private is going to jump on that stuff first, of course. Robocars constitute a percentage improvement at the surface, but don't overcome inherent capacity/land-use/energy tradeoffs between a packed subway car and a congested highway. You cannot get around the problem of automobiles using more space. [0] You will have robocars, but also robobuses and robotrains. This is a "all over, everywhere, better" improvement, not a "this one wins and crushes the others." Flexibility is important - the city is making some progress on bike paths and can continue doing much better still. Furthermore, better architecture, land use, and future lifestyle changes hold the potential to keep density at a higher average level while improving the feeling of street life to be more like the "peaceful suburban" ideal - walkable, yet quiet and non-disruptive. Framing transportation as a land-use problem - something built up from prior decisions about what real estate to build and where to build it in order to minimize average trip times and potential disruptions - rather than an engineering exercise of making as many roads and rails and tunnels and bridges as you can so that every vehicle may race along at 200 MPH for the smallest errand - drastically changes what you can do and the budget you can accomplish it with, which makes it more likely to be realized in our lifetimes. That said, I agree with the article. SF has fallen far behind its housing demand, and the lack of a "virtuous cycle" of transit projects to encourage development in outlying neighborhoods shares some blame in that. It should not be the case that it's harder to go between downtown and the Richmond than to make the same trip to Oakland. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/

sutro 11y ago

http://m.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/covering-their-tracks-the-central-subway-project-buries-millions-in-a-deep-dark-place/Content?oid=2949067 http://m.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/covering-their-tracks-the...

simonjgreen 11y ago

"Unprecedented growth"... http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_growth1.html http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_growth1.html