4 ms·
Low density. Without enough population density it's impossible for transit to be economically viable. Tokyo has it. London has it. NYC has it. SF is... simply n
by mblakele 12y ago
Low density. Without enough population density it's impossible for transit to be economically viable. Tokyo has it. London has it. NYC has it. SF is... simply not dense enough to support a good transit infrastructure.
- mercutio2 12y agoHuh? SF's population density is 17k per square mile. Only 60% as dense as all of NYC, but still extremely dense. If you meant the SF Bay Area, then yes, it's not dense at all. SF itself could afford a much better transit system, and, as the article mentions, the situation may actually improve in the next decade or so!
- mblakele 12y agoSo you have 60% of X. If you need X, you have to subsidize the difference. Where does that money come from? Anyway 60% is probably too high, because it's misleading to compare SF alone with NYC. You might better compare SF with Manhattan, or better still compare the greater Bay Area with greater NYC. Having used transit pretty extensively in both areas, I also think NYC is less balkanized. If we could reduce the number of different agencies running transit through the greater Bay Area, I think there would be less waste and less misplacement of resources. Today there are multiple agencies even within SF proper.