4 ms·

I can see why they switched. Above ground, busses are better than rail transit for a number of reasons: * if a bus ahead breaks down, the bus behind can still

by et-al 10y ago

I can see why they switched. Above ground, busses are better than rail transit for a number of reasons: * if a bus ahead breaks down, the bus behind can still go around it, so the line's not totally clogged up * busses are quieter going through neighborhoods (have a friend who lives by Duboce Park and it rumbles) * you can share the road with regular automobiles, whereas rails depend on the implementation (yes most of the ones in SF do as well) * easier to turn a bus around than a train at the terminus An actual subway could be quicker, but again that requires money, cooperation from the neighborhood, and time.

prodigal_erik 10y ago
> you can share the road with regular automobiles This guarantees that transit will always be worse than driving oneself.
- et-al 10y ago
  Yes, as is the case with San Francisco's N-Judah. However, when it comes to proposals, if you told residents "hey, you can no longer drive/park on the street in front of your house" they'd probably oppose the new rail line.
  - sfaf 10y ago
    well on multi-lane roads like geary, you could just have a dedicated lane that normal traffic can't enter
    - et-al 10y ago
      That'd be nice, but Geary is not really a multi-lane road until you go west of Van Ness, and the main areas of congestion seem to be downtown, east of Van Ness. The way the current metro light-rail is laid out is a good idea on paper: underground for the dense urban areas, and above ground where you can have space for a dedicated lane. If a potential Geary Metro was underground from Embarcadero to Japantown (Laguna or Webster), then above ground the rest of the way, I can see see a light-rail system working. Now let's find a politician with the clout to have Geary under construction for 5-7 years (optimistically).
      - niftich 10y ago
        East of Van Ness, Geary and O'Farrell form a one-way pair. But yes, there's not much space, and the area dense so running underground would make sense. As others have pointed out, there is in fact a BRT project in progress to bring a separated, dedicated-lane busway to Geary [1]. [1] http://www.sfcta.org/geary-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-home http://www.sfcta.org/geary-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-home
        et-al 10y ago
        Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing this finally come to fruition.
- ssalazar 10y ago
  Worse in regards to travel time, for one individual. Its still better for that one individual in terms of effort, and in terms of ability to do something besides driving (read, watch tv, etc.) And each person taking the bus is on average ~1 less car on the road to cause traffic.
rsync 10y ago
"I can see why they switched. Above ground, busses are better than rail transit for a number of reasons" There is nothing worse than buses. I, and many others, will do almost anything to avoid riding a bus. There is very little I can think of in our built, urban environment that is more aesthetically terrible and ill mannered than big, dumb (and in most cities, black exhaust spewing) buses bonking their way around city streets. Steve Jobs said it best: "If you see a (bus), they blew it."[1] [1] https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus-or-a-task-manager-they-blew-it/ https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus...
- et-al 10y ago
  Having a bunch of taxis (or Lyft/Uber) is worse than busses. They're definitely less efficient and cause more congestion. Yes, for the riders of the cabs, it's a more pleasant experience, but at the cost of the collective whole. And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail. I agree that the bus experience in general is substandard to rail, but the reality is that when transit planners need to service a new area, they can just route a bus in a few months as opposed to building out a rail line.
  - rsync 10y ago
    "And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail." Zurich comes to mind. While there are indeed buses in Zurich, they're somewhat superfluous and only used in (rare) edge cases. Contrary to your assumption, Zurich is almost entirely served by rail.
    - et-al 10y ago
      If I understood your original argument correctly, you believe that if transit planners have to resort to using busses, they've failed ("blew it"). In the case of Zürich, how did they not fail your metric? If the busses are truly superfluous, then why doesn't the transit agency discontinue those lines? I'd like to think they're there for a reason other than paying bus drivers and lining some pockets. The reality is that cities, because they're changing, will always need busses alongside rail. As new areas become popular and need access, it's far quicker and cheaper to route a new bus line there. Today's bus route might become tomorrow's rail.

by et-al 10y ago

prodigal_erik 10y ago

> you can share the road with regular automobiles This guarantees that transit will always be worse than driving oneself.

et-al 10y ago
Yes, as is the case with San Francisco's N-Judah. However, when it comes to proposals, if you told residents "hey, you can no longer drive/park on the street in front of your house" they'd probably oppose the new rail line.
- sfaf 10y ago
  well on multi-lane roads like geary, you could just have a dedicated lane that normal traffic can't enter
  - et-al 10y ago
    That'd be nice, but Geary is not really a multi-lane road until you go west of Van Ness, and the main areas of congestion seem to be downtown, east of Van Ness. The way the current metro light-rail is laid out is a good idea on paper: underground for the dense urban areas, and above ground where you can have space for a dedicated lane. If a potential Geary Metro was underground from Embarcadero to Japantown (Laguna or Webster), then above ground the rest of the way, I can see see a light-rail system working. Now let's find a politician with the clout to have Geary under construction for 5-7 years (optimistically).
    - niftich 10y ago
      East of Van Ness, Geary and O'Farrell form a one-way pair. But yes, there's not much space, and the area dense so running underground would make sense. As others have pointed out, there is in fact a BRT project in progress to bring a separated, dedicated-lane busway to Geary [1]. [1] http://www.sfcta.org/geary-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-home http://www.sfcta.org/geary-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-home
      - et-al 10y ago
        Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing this finally come to fruition.
ssalazar 10y ago
Worse in regards to travel time, for one individual. Its still better for that one individual in terms of effort, and in terms of ability to do something besides driving (read, watch tv, etc.) And each person taking the bus is on average ~1 less car on the road to cause traffic.

rsync 10y ago

"I can see why they switched. Above ground, busses are better than rail transit for a number of reasons" There is nothing worse than buses. I, and many others, will do almost anything to avoid riding a bus. There is very little I can think of in our built, urban environment that is more aesthetically terrible and ill mannered than big, dumb (and in most cities, black exhaust spewing) buses bonking their way around city streets. Steve Jobs said it best: "If you see a (bus), they blew it."[1] [1] https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus-or-a-task-manager-they-blew-it/ https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus...

et-al 10y ago
Having a bunch of taxis (or Lyft/Uber) is worse than busses. They're definitely less efficient and cause more congestion. Yes, for the riders of the cabs, it's a more pleasant experience, but at the cost of the collective whole. And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail. I agree that the bus experience in general is substandard to rail, but the reality is that when transit planners need to service a new area, they can just route a bus in a few months as opposed to building out a rail line.
- rsync 10y ago
  "And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail." Zurich comes to mind. While there are indeed buses in Zurich, they're somewhat superfluous and only used in (rare) edge cases. Contrary to your assumption, Zurich is almost entirely served by rail.
  - et-al 10y ago
    If I understood your original argument correctly, you believe that if transit planners have to resort to using busses, they've failed ("blew it"). In the case of Zürich, how did they not fail your metric? If the busses are truly superfluous, then why doesn't the transit agency discontinue those lines? I'd like to think they're there for a reason other than paying bus drivers and lining some pockets. The reality is that cities, because they're changing, will always need busses alongside rail. As new areas become popular and need access, it's far quicker and cheaper to route a new bus line there. Today's bus route might become tomorrow's rail.