4 ms·

Alright, so if I'm evaluating the benefits of adding an additional 20 miles of track length to the system, should I added at the low-density edges or the high-d

by Empact 16y ago

Alright, so if I'm evaluating the benefits of adding an additional 20 miles of track length to the system, should I added at the low-density edges or the high-density core? How would you evaluate the benefits of the two options? He's said that the core option would get several times more ridership. And I'm sorry you bring up his city of residence. As a Texas-born New Yorker, I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacious ad hominem. Or should I discounting your arguments because you're presumably Californian and your government isn't particularly high-functioning?

hugh3 16y ago
San Francisco faces a lot of problems which DC doesn't when designing a subway system. Apart from the fact that there's a honking great bay in the middle of the metropolitan area, I'm not sure it's possible for BART to serve much more of San Francisco proper than it already does. Why? Well, if you go north of the BART line you're rapidly into the hills, so either you have to take the trains up the grade (bad idea) or you have to build your stations thirty storeys underground (also a bad idea). If you go past the hills and up to the Marina, you're into reclaimed land so I don't think it's possible to build a tunnel (civil engineers out there to comment?) You could probably extend it out into the Richmond and Sunset districts, but that part of town is served reasonably by buses anyway. While I hate to defend BART almost as much as I hate to ride on BART, its main purpose is really all about linking the cities of the East Bay with San Francisco, and San Francisco with the airport. Comparing it to a proper metro system in a city not subject to the weird geographical limitations imposed by the hills and the Bay isn't really fair.
- Someone 16y ago
  I'm not an engineer, but I live in the Netherlands, so I am qualified to tell you that it is possible to build tunnels under reclaimed land. Just like with tunnels under a waterway, you just have to take some precautions to prevent the tunnel from flooding or floating.
- enf 16y ago
  Embarcadero station is built in landfill, but it does make things more difficult. None of the San Francisco subway plans of the past ever attempted to serve Russian Hill very well. A line on Geary (or Post or O'Farrell) was the inevitable closest proposal every time.
gojomo 16y ago
Y'all need to take a chill pill. As I'm a New York-born, Houston-raised, SF resident, no ad hominem was intended, except to emphasize that outsiders can miss things obvious to a resident. That's why I also mentioned that even when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART to SF regularly, I didn't understand MUNI. The link you provided overlooked the key fact that SF has another system that's far more like SF's version of DC's Metrorail: MUNI -- even though the MUNI cars and payment-mechanism doesn't look as much like Metrorail as BART does. The idea of extending BART to provide more central-city service isn't even considered, because the BART system was created primarily to serve regional, long-haul, city-to-city needs. BART is the LIRR or PATH trains, not the MTA subways, of the bay area. The internal SF system at the dense core is being extended -- a controversial new 'Central Subway' from Chinatown to CalTrain/SOMA -- and it will be part of MUNI, not BART. And you pointing out that the California state government isn't high-functioning? Well, that's just mean. Fortunately, as an authentic Tex-Yorker, I have a tough skin and am not particularly sensitive to such slights.

by Empact 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

San Francisco faces a lot of problems which DC doesn't when designing a subway system. Apart from the fact that there's a honking great bay in the middle of the metropolitan area, I'm not sure it's possible for BART to serve much more of San Francisco proper than it already does. Why? Well, if you go north of the BART line you're rapidly into the hills, so either you have to take the trains up the grade (bad idea) or you have to build your stations thirty storeys underground (also a bad idea). If you go past the hills and up to the Marina, you're into reclaimed land so I don't think it's possible to build a tunnel (civil engineers out there to comment?) You could probably extend it out into the Richmond and Sunset districts, but that part of town is served reasonably by buses anyway. While I hate to defend BART almost as much as I hate to ride on BART, its main purpose is really all about linking the cities of the East Bay with San Francisco, and San Francisco with the airport. Comparing it to a proper metro system in a city not subject to the weird geographical limitations imposed by the hills and the Bay isn't really fair.

Someone 16y ago
I'm not an engineer, but I live in the Netherlands, so I am qualified to tell you that it is possible to build tunnels under reclaimed land. Just like with tunnels under a waterway, you just have to take some precautions to prevent the tunnel from flooding or floating.
enf 16y ago
Embarcadero station is built in landfill, but it does make things more difficult. None of the San Francisco subway plans of the past ever attempted to serve Russian Hill very well. A line on Geary (or Post or O'Farrell) was the inevitable closest proposal every time.

gojomo 16y ago

Y'all need to take a chill pill. As I'm a New York-born, Houston-raised, SF resident, no ad hominem was intended, except to emphasize that outsiders can miss things obvious to a resident. That's why I also mentioned that even when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART to SF regularly, I didn't understand MUNI. The link you provided overlooked the key fact that SF has another system that's far more like SF's version of DC's Metrorail: MUNI -- even though the MUNI cars and payment-mechanism doesn't look as much like Metrorail as BART does. The idea of extending BART to provide more central-city service isn't even considered, because the BART system was created primarily to serve regional, long-haul, city-to-city needs. BART is the LIRR or PATH trains, not the MTA subways, of the bay area. The internal SF system at the dense core is being extended -- a controversial new 'Central Subway' from Chinatown to CalTrain/SOMA -- and it will be part of MUNI, not BART. And you pointing out that the California state government isn't high-functioning? Well, that's just mean. Fortunately, as an authentic Tex-Yorker, I have a tough skin and am not particularly sensitive to such slights.