Why doesn't SF have a subway yet? (San Francisco, Oakland: to buy, to live)

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Perhaps Metro should have been the model for BART. BART's interconnectiveness regionally, as I noted, is outstanding. But what is missing from BART is the ability to serve the inner cores of the Bay Area, SF and Oakland,

Unlike most American cities, SF and Oakland at least have centralized downtown areas with a concentration of office buildings. DC doesn't have that as much, also DC always had a ton of military-industrial complex money and influence flying around so they had more $$$ to spend and more leeway when building their system.

If you live in the Bay Area you take BART for granted but it really is a great system that is still more advanced than the transit systems of other cities--definitely more advanced than more traditional systems like Chicago's El or the NYC subway which are still using old-school subway cars that rattle and shake. And it's way more convenient than most cities' commuter rail systems--BART takes you right into downtown SF and has multiple stations. Commuter rail in many cities is more like Caltrain, where it's fast and reliable but drops you off at a depot in an inconvenient location far from where you work, like Union Station in Chicago or Penn or Grand Central in NYC.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by EdJS

BART opened in 1972, while Washington Metro opened in 1976. If anything, BART was the model for Metro.

It was. Same company built the DC metro, everything's identical.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

definitely more advanced than more traditional systems like Chicago's El or the NYC subway which are still using old-school subway cars that rattle and shake.

Two words: Paris Metro. The cars have rubber wheels, so there's not that awful screeching of steel on steel. Very comfortable.

San Fran does have commuter rail as well--it serves the Peninsula south of San Fran.

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by matt345

Despite BART’s limitations and how awful MUNI can be, San Francisco has long held the reputation of having the best public transportation options in California (and probably the entire West Coast). However, the opening of the Expo Line in LA this past weekend really made me think – will we one day soon see LA surpass SF as the transit mecca of the Western US?

Interesting question. Portland probably has a better shot at "transit mecca of the Western US" but as far as CA goes, LA is in the running. I grew up in LA and was believed the mythical notion that SF was a place where people ride trains around the city all the time and don't need to own cars. Having lived both places now, it's more like: If you used a transit scale from 0 to 100, with 100 defined as Manhattan, LA would be around 25 and SF would be 30. Better, but not much and not really that great on a wider scale of comparison.

Originally Posted by Tomlcsc

Of all the cities in the US, I'm surprised SF hasn't established a legit subway system. I get it that the Mission has the Bart, but it seems like a no brainer to me that SF could run a profitable subway system that has access to every other neighborhood in the city limits.

I mean c'mon, SF has the 2nd highest population density in the entire US!

SF may have the 2nd highest population density, but it is less than one quarter the density of Manhattan. Outside of the northeastern quarter of the city, most housing is in single-family attached residences at densities that are considered suburban in New York and London.

Also the density comparison of SF vs. LA has a lot to do with city boundaries. LA has 7 times as much land area. If you drew the shape of SF (49 sq mi) around the area west of Downtown LA - roughly between the 10, 110, Griffith Park and La Brea Ave - you would have 1.2 million people, or 1.5 the density of SF.

Originally Posted by hsw

Doubt there is mass transit anywhere on planet that is "profitable"

I believe Hong Kong and Singapore run profitable systems.

The proportion is about the same as the proportion of road systems in the world that are profitable.

Mass transit is merely another form of welfare for both riders

Wrong. It is a form of transportation infrastructure, which is essential for a functioning first world economy. This is something that every developed world government understands far better than the United States.

Originally Posted by sjnative

What you're blithely overlooking is the fact that SF is a young city which didn't grow until the mid-19th century and thenafter, its intercity transportation needs have been met- well or poorly- by surface public transit.

Metro systems don't have to be old. The Shanghai Metro opened in 1995 and is currently the largest metro system in the world. Rio de Janeiro is also undergoing a massive subway expansion at the moment. The US is quite the outlier when it comes to our neglect of transportation.

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

If you live in the Bay Area you take BART for granted but it really is a great system that is still more advanced than the transit systems of other cities--definitely more advanced than more traditional systems like Chicago's El or the NYC subway which are still using old-school subway cars that rattle and shake.

Those 100-year-old systems have serious maintenance backlogs, but they get you where you want to go all over the city, which is the most important element of a transit system.

And it's way more convenient than most cities' commuter rail systems--BART takes you right into downtown SF and has multiple stations. Commuter rail in many cities is more like Caltrain, where it's fast and reliable but drops you off at a depot in an inconvenient location far from where you work, like Union Station in Chicago or Penn or Grand Central in NYC.

How did Grand Central get in there? It is located at the absolute job epicenter of Manhattan and connected with five extremely frequent subway lines (4,5,6,7 & Shuttle). Penn Station, granted, is a bit out of the way but still connects to the subway. There's no way you can compare those stations to Caltrain, which dumps you off more than a mile from the Financial District with only one practically useless light rail line to connect to.

[jbunniii]

Subways are expensive to build and require huge ridership to justify the cost. Most of SF (certainly the western half) is not dense enough to provide this ridership. Street-level railways are much cheaper. Most of the Muni lines used to be streetcars, but all except the ones that used the tunnels were replaced with buses starting in the 1940s.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by EdJS

BART opened in 1972, while Washington Metro opened in 1976. If anything, BART was the model for Metro.

well i certainly don't disagree. in fact, i would consider BART to be the model for all post-WWII rapid transit systems....Metro, Martha, LA's red line, etc.

what i'm suggesting is that Metro built on the BART concept and created something far more functional.....not only vast regional connections to the core, but dense core lines as well.

Makes sense, doesn't it.....the model always gets improved upon.

and that's where, for example, the Bay Area ends up being on the "improvement" end. In MLB, Baltimore's Camden Yards set the stage for the retropark era, with improvements to come in the new parks that built on the example. now personally i'm of the opinion that one park....PacBell/SBC/AT&T is the one that built on the Camden Yards concept and took it to its zenith.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

It was. Same company built the DC metro, everything's identical.

Except for the fares. DC's Metro has unlimited ride passes. BART does not.

[humboldtrat]

Transit between San Francisco and Oakland in the 1940's. It was all gone by 1960 because cars were seen as the wave of the future. Streetcars (now called "light rail") also went as far south as San Mateo.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXbicSxD0_g

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

MUNI is much worse than subway service. The light rail is just a glorified bus if anything. Even a rapid bus system beats it hands down.

San Francisco is small, dense, and hilly. MUNI"s layout and type of service it offers may actually be perfect for the city.

to start with, is it really that difficult to get from the southwest part of the city (SFSU, Parkmerced) to the northeast, that greatest diagonal distance in SF? Not with Muni.

there are just too many limitations due to SF's topography to create the type of rail system that could be built in a flatter place. the entire center of the city.....Mt. Sutro, Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson is high up and would be a dead zone for any real subway system that worked its way out of downtown to the neighborhoods beyond that hefty ridge. Indeed the only main transit station that is located anywhere near those higher elevations is MUNI's Forest Hill.