3 ms·

Isn't SF public transport decent though ? I only went there once and I felt it was rather comparable to my European home town.

ghaff 12y ago
Like most cities, whether American or European, with "decent" public transportation it's easier and faster to travel between some locations than others partly because of the hills. Certainly it's faster to take a car on many routes than it is to take public transportation. There's something of a stereotype of public transportation being almost universally absent in US cities and being some sort of nirvana that rapidly whisks you anywhere in western Europe. In general, European public transit does tend to be better than in the US--especially compared to newer and more spread out US cities away from the coasts--but the contrast can also be exaggerated.
- KaiserPro 12y ago
  Oh indeed, SF has excellent public transport, for the US. Manhattan has a great metro, but buses for the last mile are non existent. However they are not as critical as say in london.
  - marssaxman 12y ago
    Having a great metro means buses for the last mile are unnecessary. If they were necessary, it wouldn't count as a "great metro".
_delirium 12y ago
It is ok-ish, but not great. I think at this point it may actually be worse than LA's, which has improved its system considerably in the past 20 years. Among various complaints: SF Muni is rarely on time and very slow, especially if you need to go east/west. The two main crosstown routes, the N-Judah streetcar and 38-Geary bus, travel just slightly faster than a brisk walk, and are badly overcrowded. The connections to even nearby areas outside of SF proper are fairly spotty also; BART and Caltrain (and to a lesser extent, ACE and Amtrak) combine to make something halfway between a subway and a commuter-rail network, but not one sufficient for ~8 million people. A lack of integrated tickets between all the systems is an annoyance. On the Valley side of things, the lack of success of the Santa Clara VTA Light Rail hampers overall ability for people to commute to/from SF and the Valley without cars—the VTA built 42 miles of track but much of it on a very odd choice of alignment that makes it not useful to that many people.

ghaff 12y ago

Like most cities, whether American or European, with "decent" public transportation it's easier and faster to travel between some locations than others partly because of the hills. Certainly it's faster to take a car on many routes than it is to take public transportation. There's something of a stereotype of public transportation being almost universally absent in US cities and being some sort of nirvana that rapidly whisks you anywhere in western Europe. In general, European public transit does tend to be better than in the US--especially compared to newer and more spread out US cities away from the coasts--but the contrast can also be exaggerated.

KaiserPro 12y ago
Oh indeed, SF has excellent public transport, for the US. Manhattan has a great metro, but buses for the last mile are non existent. However they are not as critical as say in london.
- marssaxman 12y ago
  Having a great metro means buses for the last mile are unnecessary. If they were necessary, it wouldn't count as a "great metro".

_delirium 12y ago

It is ok-ish, but not great. I think at this point it may actually be worse than LA's, which has improved its system considerably in the past 20 years. Among various complaints: SF Muni is rarely on time and very slow, especially if you need to go east/west. The two main crosstown routes, the N-Judah streetcar and 38-Geary bus, travel just slightly faster than a brisk walk, and are badly overcrowded. The connections to even nearby areas outside of SF proper are fairly spotty also; BART and Caltrain (and to a lesser extent, ACE and Amtrak) combine to make something halfway between a subway and a commuter-rail network, but not one sufficient for ~8 million people. A lack of integrated tickets between all the systems is an annoyance. On the Valley side of things, the lack of success of the Santa Clara VTA Light Rail hampers overall ability for people to commute to/from SF and the Valley without cars—the VTA built 42 miles of track but much of it on a very odd choice of alignment that makes it not useful to that many people.