3 ms·

Haha. Doubtful. In your lifetime you won't see any transit system in the bay area that approaches anything remotely close to what you see in places like Tokyo o

Haha. Doubtful. In your lifetime you won't see any transit system in the bay area that approaches anything remotely close to what you see in places like Tokyo or NYC. I get that there's improvement but like it's still rather pathetic compared to almost everywhere else across the pond.

lswainemoore 2y ago
Why so negative? Given that the served population is conservatively a quarter of either of those areas, doesn't seem like a fair comparison. More to the point, I've been favorably impressed with the transit options since moving here, and in terms of reliability it's been better than NYC, though obviously there are fewer trains/branches. I'd love to see BART open later, like NYC, but even Tokyo trains stop at midnight.
- astrange 2y ago
  NYC is more or less the only system in the world that runs all night like that. It makes it very hard to do maintenance.
  - frosted-flakes 2y ago
    And NYC can do that because most of it's lines have three or four tracks.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  It's fair. NYC is 8.8 million, bay area is 7 million. Tokyo is about double that. Not being negative. Being realistic. It's unfortunate that being realistic often is negative. Transit here is garbage. You either luck out and live and work near transit or you're like most people and have to drive. A couple million in energy savings doesn't mean anything compared to the amount wasted by cars.
  - verteu 2y ago
    Surely the relevant metric is population density?
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      You have the causal arrow backwards. A high density train network enables population density and high energy efficiency. At current population density all of our lives would improve if a network as dense as the tokyo metro appeared in the bay area over night.
  - lswainemoore 2y ago
    Those are not the right population metrics to compare. If you're talking full Bay Area, you might as well talk NYC metro area (MTA claims to serve 15.3 million [1]). Tokyo's even trickier, but I think 36 million [2] seems closer to right. It's probably not worth arguing about too much, because ultimately I agree with you that there's a lot more to be done to reduce car ridership. But pointing at those places and saying "copy them" misses a lot of structural differences. [1] https://mta.info/about https://mta.info/about [2] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822d2c4edbf4 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822...
astrange 2y ago
If you copy Japan policies you can get something much closer to Japan, it's not magic. (Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the station building.)
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  If it's not magic why isn't it being done? That's the point. This news is rather pathetic strictly because a better scenario is NOT magic.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Simple. Most people don’t want it.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on. The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability. Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
      - Johnny555 2y ago
        They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset. Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.
spike021 2y ago
Tokyo metropolitan area is nothing like the SF Bay Area. It's extremely different and so is ridership. Also, if you check out smaller cities in Japan they don't always have as good public transit. Heck, even in Tokyo you can find neighborhoods where you still need to walk or maybe take a bus because train lines don't quite reach them.

lswainemoore 2y ago

Why so negative? Given that the served population is conservatively a quarter of either of those areas, doesn't seem like a fair comparison. More to the point, I've been favorably impressed with the transit options since moving here, and in terms of reliability it's been better than NYC, though obviously there are fewer trains/branches. I'd love to see BART open later, like NYC, but even Tokyo trains stop at midnight.

astrange 2y ago
NYC is more or less the only system in the world that runs all night like that. It makes it very hard to do maintenance.
- frosted-flakes 2y ago
  And NYC can do that because most of it's lines have three or four tracks.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
It's fair. NYC is 8.8 million, bay area is 7 million. Tokyo is about double that. Not being negative. Being realistic. It's unfortunate that being realistic often is negative. Transit here is garbage. You either luck out and live and work near transit or you're like most people and have to drive. A couple million in energy savings doesn't mean anything compared to the amount wasted by cars.
- verteu 2y ago
  Surely the relevant metric is population density?
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    You have the causal arrow backwards. A high density train network enables population density and high energy efficiency. At current population density all of our lives would improve if a network as dense as the tokyo metro appeared in the bay area over night.
- lswainemoore 2y ago
  Those are not the right population metrics to compare. If you're talking full Bay Area, you might as well talk NYC metro area (MTA claims to serve 15.3 million [1]). Tokyo's even trickier, but I think 36 million [2] seems closer to right. It's probably not worth arguing about too much, because ultimately I agree with you that there's a lot more to be done to reduce car ridership. But pointing at those places and saying "copy them" misses a lot of structural differences. [1] https://mta.info/about https://mta.info/about [2] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822d2c4edbf4 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0056b6a98b8b4a48869f822...

astrange 2y ago

If you copy Japan policies you can get something much closer to Japan, it's not magic. (Transit oriented upzoning, no parking minimums, and businesses in the station building.)

ninetyninenine 2y ago
If it's not magic why isn't it being done? That's the point. This news is rather pathetic strictly because a better scenario is NOT magic.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Simple. Most people don’t want it.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on. The Bay area (people) want top of the line transit, all of California wants it. It's similar to how Ethiopia wants to get out of poverty. Both places can't get what they want for similar reasons: incapability. Take a look at the high speed rail. Probably won't finish in both of our lifetimes. People want that thing, what's stopping it from happening is incompetence.
    - Johnny555 2y ago
      They do. You're not being realistic. Almost everyone would like to have a choice between getting on a subway for super cheap or driving through traffic. You're saying they would rather have no choice between the two options? Come on Sure, everyone wants an easy commute where the train picks them up in front of their house and drops them off at the office, but they also want their house with yard in Walnut Creek. Or lacking that, their single family house in the Sunset. Sure some people would be happy in a high density city, but do enough people want it to make it worth building? As dense as downtown San Francisco is, it's still a long commute to the Easy Bay or Peninsula from the Sunset or Richmond. Driving is usually faster and more convenient.

spike021 2y ago

Tokyo metropolitan area is nothing like the SF Bay Area. It's extremely different and so is ridership. Also, if you check out smaller cities in Japan they don't always have as good public transit. Heck, even in Tokyo you can find neighborhoods where you still need to walk or maybe take a bus because train lines don't quite reach them.