U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-26-2012, 04:35 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
30,805 posts, read 49,217,631 times
Reputation: 13718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
You basically just repeated the same "argument" you just tried to make in your previous post and of course didn't address any of the points I brought up. Despite BART, traffic congestion has increased in the Bay Area and elsewhere with rail lines. Perhaps you should read up on how transit doesn't "alleviate" congestion but rather provides an alternative to it or slows the growth of it. What don't you get about that? For someone who can make relatively intelligent arguments at times it kind of surprises me how easily you'll avoid some basic fundamental points brought up.
So your unhappy over my use of the word 'alleviate'?

Okay, so is it acceptable to say that traffic is not-as-bad-as-it-could-be due to BART?



BTW, Alleviate does not necessarily mean to cure, it also means to make less severe.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2012, 05:04 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
30,805 posts, read 49,217,631 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
BART is only used by 367,000 people , but is over 100 miles in size , that makes a small dent in traffic.
Useless babble.

For the purpose of educating you and for the information of anyone else who doubts the impact BART has on Bay Area traffic, here is an article with highlights of a report put out by UC Berkeley's Institute ofTransportation Studies
Quote:
If the Transbay Tube were out of commission and people were forced to hit the road, there would be a traffic nightmare on major Bay Area corridors and nearby city streets," said Jorge Laval, post-doctoral researcher at ITS and lead author of the report. "The mess on the freeways would spill over to city streets, and that makes things even worse. In many cases, drivers would likely spend one to two hours on city streets just to get to the freeway, crawling at speeds as low as two miles per hour."

Hard-hit commutes would include the span from Pittsburg to I-80 via Highway 4, which would take 165 minutes instead of the usual 30 minutes. Travel times from I-680 to Highway 13, via Highway 24 through the Caldecott Tunnel, would go from 24 minutes to 195 minutes, eight times longer than normal.

While it is no surprise that crippling the Bay Area's primary public transit system would have detrimental ripple effects on roadways, this report is the first to systematically quantify the traffic delays.

"We found that the peak morning rush hour will go from two hours starting at 7 a.m. to a staggering seven hours, so half the workday would be gone by the time drivers step out of their cars," said Michael Cassidy, UC Berkeley professor of civil engineering and co-author of the report. "We didn't analyze the impacts on labor, but it's hard to imagine how such a serious traffic mess would not put a dent into worker productivity."

Other results from the study indicate that without BART transbay service, congestion from the Bay Bridge westbound in the morning would create backups stretching 26 miles with vehicles traveling as slowly as 9 miles per hour. In the afternoon, heading east, the Bay Bridge backup would stretch 31 miles with an average travel speed of 11 miles per hour.

University of California - UC Newsroom | New report finds traffic nightmare if BART service knocked out
fyi, this dire scenario already came to life in 1997 when BART went on stike. Those of us who were old enough to live it and work through it remember all too well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Location: anywhere but Seattle
1,082 posts, read 1,611,469 times
Reputation: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Sorry but all it takes is a BART strike to remind us how much the system totally alleviates traffic.
And thats the cold hard truth. You can't argue with this fact. If we eliminated BART completely tomorrow, hardly anyone would notice. As a mass transit system BART is a complete failure.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 09:21 AM
 
172 posts, read 200,403 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
BART is only used by 367,000 people
BART is used by people who mainly work in SF. SF is not a big city and is not going to be due to it's geographical location. Silicon Valley campuses are all spread around. It's very different from SF Financial District. Out of 7 mln people who leave in SF BA, over 2 mln live in Silicon Valley - 30% of entire population live in close proximity to places with most jobs. But it doesn't have the same high density population as DC area, so it will never have the same ridership numbers per mile here dur to the distance. You can have high ridership per mile when people travel for short distance. And it may be OK to stay back to back for 10 mins in overcrowded cars, but not for 30-50 min every day.

Anybody can guess what kind of ridership per mile we will have in HSR going mostly through rural areas with minimum(?) stops?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 01:11 PM
 
Location: California
28,769 posts, read 29,048,826 times
Reputation: 23562
Quote:
Originally Posted by evergraystate View Post
And thats the cold hard truth. You can't argue with this fact. If we eliminated BART completely tomorrow, hardly anyone would notice. As a mass transit system BART is a complete failure.
I wouldn't say that. I've been using it off and on since it opened, mostly to get into SF from outlying areas. My car, being off the road, helps traffic. It may not help as much as you would like but people here take what they can get especially when you add the fact that parking in SF is also difficult.

It's true that the area outgrew BART, there are more people now than anticipated. But like I said before, this is what we have, we can't go back in time and change it and build things differently or whatnot. BART is it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
30,805 posts, read 49,217,631 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by evergraystate View Post
And thats the cold hard truth. You can't argue with this fact. If we eliminated BART completely tomorrow, hardly anyone would notice. As a mass transit system BART is a complete failure.
This response does not address nor does it counter my statement in the least. Not in any way, shape or form. Yawns.

You quoted this:
Sorry but all it takes is a BART strike to remind us how much the system totally alleviates traffic-18Montclair


Anything else?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
24,967 posts, read 24,765,212 times
Reputation: 22688
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I agree, it's not like Downtown Livermore is some large hub of housing, retail, and office space nor will it ever be. I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of commuters who would use a LIvermore BART station would come from the other side of the Altamont Pass too.

I think extending it to Livermore would be a much better use of transit funds than the Oakland Airport Connector and ESPECIALLY the "Central Subway".
Sorry, Livermore expansion (although technically funded) is equally as pointless as the Airport Connector. They estimate that the station will attract 10,000 boardings a day. In contrast, and infill station in East Oakland between Fruitvale and Lake Merritt stations would attrack 50K boardings no problem.

There are at least 3 better locations in Oakland and another few in SF that are more practical and would have more boardings. They'd also have a lower impact at peak, especially considering BART really doesn't have much capacity to handle more peak commute hours passenger traffic under the bay.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
24,967 posts, read 24,765,212 times
Reputation: 22688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
BART is only used by 367,000 people , but is over 100 miles in size , that makes a small dent in traffic. Now if the BART system had 900,000 daily users then it would make a decent dent in traffic. For 100 miles in size you should have at least 900,000 daily users. Part of the reason for the low ridership is due to the fact like with many systems west of the Mississippi , your extensions are built in Interstate ROW instead of through dense areas. Now lets examine the Ridership per mile on the BART , its 3,664 , for system over 100 miles long thats extremely low. The DC metro moves 1 Million people a day , is 106 Miles long and moves 9,437 per mile. So it makes a decent dent in DC Traffic.

The PATH system is 14 miles long , moves 265,000 people daily and has 18,775 per mile....and it makes a huge dent in Urban Congestion. Your ridership and ridership per mile more so need to be higher to see any dents in Traffic. Now if your taking about MUNI , they make a dent in Traffic and congestion , Ridership per mile on that system is an average of 10,000 per line. Now if you Electrified your Caltrains system , you could build a system similar to Bart at half the cost and faster....
This isn't a valid argument. Unlike in let's say NYC or the DC metro area, we do not have many dense job centers. Sadly, the portion of jobs in downtown SF, downtown Oakland and downtown SJ is shrinking.


Most bay area jobs are in spread out suburban office parks. There isn't a transit solution for this because they were all designed before transit was a priority.

But if you dig a little deeper into the stats, a good portion of downtown SF workers take transit into downtown, instead of driving. Oakland is next best in the region.

Quote:
In Northern California, San Francisco and Oakland are the best examples of downtowns with healthy transit ridership: San Francisco has more than 50 percent and Oakland around 24 percent.
So our best path is increasing density around the transit centers, even if transit isn't the best option for people to get to work.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 04:56 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 21,170,611 times
Reputation: 4474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This isn't a valid argument. Unlike in let's say NYC or the DC metro area, we do not have many dense job centers. Sadly, the portion of jobs in downtown SF, downtown Oakland and downtown SJ is shrinking.


Most bay area jobs are in spread out suburban office parks. There isn't a transit solution for this because they were all designed before transit was a priority.

But if you dig a little deeper into the stats, a good portion of downtown SF workers take transit into downtown, instead of driving. Oakland is next best in the region.



So our best path is increasing density around the transit centers, even if transit isn't the best option for people to get to work.
Why wouldn't a company want to have an office in a dense area? Many of the suburban companies here are finding it cheaper to operate in the cities , same can be said in other parts of the US. So the fact that SF , Oakland and San Jose aren't seeing that is abit worry some.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 04:57 PM
 
Location: anywhere but Seattle
1,082 posts, read 1,611,469 times
Reputation: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
This response does not address nor does it counter my statement in the least. Not in any way, shape or form. Yawns.

You quoted this:
Sorry but all it takes is a BART strike to remind us how much the system totally alleviates traffic-18Montclair


Anything else?
You call that your evidence? Get real. Throw 365k people onto the freeway that are both inexperienced and stressed to adjust to a new routine, what did you think was going to happen? Of the millions of cars that plow the roads of the Bay Area every day, we're supposed to subsidize and coddle a few spoiled brats just because they chose to buy mcmansions in the middle of nowhere.


OMG LOL I can use bold font too!!!!11
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top