3 ms·

It seems like the absurdity of the local public transit forces a lot of the high density construction downtown. When MUNI isn't halted (it regularly is) it oft

It seems like the absurdity of the local public transit forces a lot of the high density construction downtown. When MUNI isn't halted (it regularly is) it often takes me 25 minutes to get to SOMA (Ballpark) from the Mission on MUNI even though straight line distance is less than one mile. Each MUNI ticket are is $2. The total system cost is $750MM and fare revenue is $150M which makes the real value of a MUNI fare $10. $10 to go less than one mile for half an hour!

notatoad 14y ago
Have you tried walking? From what you say it sounds like a cheaper, quicker, and more reliable alternative.
- bickfordb 14y ago
  I cycle usually but I would appreciate a reasonable public transit system. Yeah, it is often a similar amount of time walking places.
dredmorbius 14y ago
There are a few points not appreciated about transit systems. Not that Muni doesn't offer significant room for improvement. - Net effective speeds are low ... but so are other modes of transport through dense regions. Downtown SF to Stonestown is 21 minutes driving (31 in traffic), 30 minutes by Muni. That's an 18 MPH average driving speed, including significant segments on i280. The Muni route is shorter (about 6.5 miles), and reflects a slower net speed but over a more direct route). - Positive externalities are high. Riders save on, at a minimum, parking, and at a maximum, auto ownership expenses (about $7,500/year, probably higher given garaging/ticketing expenses in SF). Merchants benefit by shoppers. Employers benefit from more convenience to employees. Drivers benefit by reduced congestion. It makes sense for transit to be partially offset by taxes or other fees, as it is in San Francisco. - Density matters. As dense as it is (for a Western US city), SF is just barely at the density for which transit is effective. While the microunits suggested are one possible alternative, towers are more likely the solution (much of SF is zoned for 40' maximum height -- roughly 3-story construction). - Other factors. Muni relies on tracked vehicles (Muni Metro/streetcars, cable cars), and trolley buses which are supplied electrical power from overhead wires. All provide for minimal bypass capability when a vehicle is disabled -- there's no way to route around such vehicles. A single disabled vehicle may cause extensive single-route or systemwide conjestion. Bikes are a reasonably viable alternative, though hills are somewhat challenging. Rain too, but less frequently.
chipsy 14y ago
I think the problem of Bay Area transit can be summed up in this convenient guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Franc... There are too many agencies, each one too myopic and embroiled in local politics to make good decisions - successful large projects seem to be more an accident than anything else. This is a nice article on what a "utopian" transit strategy might look like: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-transit-map-san-francisco/1548/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-tran...

notatoad 14y ago

Have you tried walking? From what you say it sounds like a cheaper, quicker, and more reliable alternative.

bickfordb 14y ago
I cycle usually but I would appreciate a reasonable public transit system. Yeah, it is often a similar amount of time walking places.

dredmorbius 14y ago

There are a few points not appreciated about transit systems. Not that Muni doesn't offer significant room for improvement. - Net effective speeds are low ... but so are other modes of transport through dense regions. Downtown SF to Stonestown is 21 minutes driving (31 in traffic), 30 minutes by Muni. That's an 18 MPH average driving speed, including significant segments on i280. The Muni route is shorter (about 6.5 miles), and reflects a slower net speed but over a more direct route). - Positive externalities are high. Riders save on, at a minimum, parking, and at a maximum, auto ownership expenses (about $7,500/year, probably higher given garaging/ticketing expenses in SF). Merchants benefit by shoppers. Employers benefit from more convenience to employees. Drivers benefit by reduced congestion. It makes sense for transit to be partially offset by taxes or other fees, as it is in San Francisco. - Density matters. As dense as it is (for a Western US city), SF is just barely at the density for which transit is effective. While the microunits suggested are one possible alternative, towers are more likely the solution (much of SF is zoned for 40' maximum height -- roughly 3-story construction). - Other factors. Muni relies on tracked vehicles (Muni Metro/streetcars, cable cars), and trolley buses which are supplied electrical power from overhead wires. All provide for minimal bypass capability when a vehicle is disabled -- there's no way to route around such vehicles. A single disabled vehicle may cause extensive single-route or systemwide conjestion. Bikes are a reasonably viable alternative, though hills are somewhat challenging. Rain too, but less frequently.

chipsy 14y ago

I think the problem of Bay Area transit can be summed up in this convenient guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Franc... There are too many agencies, each one too myopic and embroiled in local politics to make good decisions - successful large projects seem to be more an accident than anything else. This is a nice article on what a "utopian" transit strategy might look like: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-transit-map-san-francisco/1548/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-tran...