4 ms·

It's not about sharing track. It's about having to go to mezzanine level to transfer vs going out the landing after one flight of stairs.

by wbl 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago
> It's not about sharing track. It's about having to go to mezzanine level to transfer vs going out the landing after one flight of stairs. You can only have two tracks at a level without either (1) people walking on the tracks, which is a safety issue even without the electrified third rail, or (2) people going up and down, or vice versa, to transfer between tracks at the same level. Unless each system has only one track through the station (which complicates traffic control for two-way traffic), or unless you split levels by direction instead of system (which still requires changing levels for some transfers), you are stuck with what they have.
- wbl 7y ago
  You're still missing my point. Why can't people walk one flight of stairs instead of three, two up and one down? Have you literally never looked through the bars on the Muni level or on the stairs?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Why can't people walk one flight of stairs instead of three, two up and one down? Presumably because the management of at least one of the two systems thinks that the initial and ongoing cost (and therefore, ceteris paribus, fare) increase of either system integration or additional fare gate infrastructure (the latter of which may not be practical due to space constraints on the platform level) isn't worth the convenience increase, at least compared to other improvements they could make to their systems at the same cost.
    - wbl 7y ago
      Neither of those increase costs.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        Building and maintaining more entry/exit gates doesn't have an upfront and ongoing cost? Integrating Muni and BARTs entry, exit, and ticketing systems wouldn't have upfront and ongoing costs? I suspect an solicitation of bids for either of those would not have any $0 bids.

It's not about sharing track. It's about having to go to mezzanine level to transfer vs going out the landing after one flight of stairs.

by wbl 7y ago

It's not about sharing track. It's about having to go to mezzanine level to transfer vs going out the landing after one flight of stairs.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It's not about sharing track. It's about having to go to mezzanine level to transfer vs going out the landing after one flight of stairs. You can only have two tracks at a level without either (1) people walking on the tracks, which is a safety issue even without the electrified third rail, or (2) people going up and down, or vice versa, to transfer between tracks at the same level. Unless each system has only one track through the station (which complicates traffic control for two-way traffic), or unless you split levels by direction instead of system (which still requires changing levels for some transfers), you are stuck with what they have.

wbl 7y ago
You're still missing my point. Why can't people walk one flight of stairs instead of three, two up and one down? Have you literally never looked through the bars on the Muni level or on the stairs?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Why can't people walk one flight of stairs instead of three, two up and one down? Presumably because the management of at least one of the two systems thinks that the initial and ongoing cost (and therefore, ceteris paribus, fare) increase of either system integration or additional fare gate infrastructure (the latter of which may not be practical due to space constraints on the platform level) isn't worth the convenience increase, at least compared to other improvements they could make to their systems at the same cost.
  - wbl 7y ago
    Neither of those increase costs.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      Building and maintaining more entry/exit gates doesn't have an upfront and ongoing cost? Integrating Muni and BARTs entry, exit, and ticketing systems wouldn't have upfront and ongoing costs? I suspect an solicitation of bids for either of those would not have any $0 bids.