> BART gets you into Oakland and Berkeley which are cheaper than SF proper, but it is certainly not as extensive or reliable as NYC's. Having lived in Manhatta

> BART gets you into Oakland and Berkeley which are cheaper than SF proper, but it is certainly not as extensive or reliable as NYC's. Having lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and now SF, it really feels like it's not even a comparison. I certainly haven't been to all parts of the east bay, but from what I've seen there a couple of stops in downtown Oakland and Berkeley that have a significant amount of housing near the bart (but worth noting that some of these places have much higher crime rates than a lot of Brooklyn does today). Every further stop in every direction becomes very suburby, with a tiny amount of housing walkable to the bart stop, and the majority of commuters going by car to SF or at least driving to the bart station. In that regard, it's not too much of a stretch to say that SF has no equivalent of the NYC subway service to Brooklyn and Queens. Bart to Oakland/berkeley is kind of the equivalent of the PATH train to Hoboken & Jersey City, and further areas more like the NJ Transit/LIRR commuter trains from the suburbs. Given that it seems basically impossible to build significantly more rail lines in the bay area in the next 30+ years, it's such a waste that more effort isn't being spent building up more dense, downtown areas near all the existing bart and caltrain stops. Unfortunately all these areas have absolutely no accountability to SF or improving the bay area in general, and instead put all their effort into maintaining their sleepy suburb feel.