4 ms·

> 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.

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.