Other than money, is Geography the Biggest Obstacle to BART expansion? (San Francisco: neighborhoods, cost of)

[MrJester]

San Francisco has a far less comprehensive subway than D.C., despite the Bay Area being considerably more dense than D.C. and Northern Virginia/Maryland.

I firmly believe that San Francisco, given its density, has the potential to beat D.C. in subway transit if it were not for the mountainous terrain and expansive San Francisco Bay bisecting the Bay Area.

Think about it: You can hardly justify the cost for a Geary Subway BART, despite the density, because it simply crosses such narrow peninsula. The mountains and Bay fragment the Bay Area in many smaller areas that can only potentially be connected by exorbitantly expensive tunneling through mountains and undersea tunnels.

You will never get BART access on hilly neighborhoods like Twin Peaks or Oakland Hills, unless you build a 500 foot elevator through solid rock from the neighborhood down to the subway station (because subways can't overcome more than a very gentle slope, and subways won't wind around like roads to get to the top of the hill!)

Likewise, there really is only ONE East West BART corridor (transbay tube) in the entire system because tunneling across a big fat bay is far more expensive than tunneling under flat ground.

By contrast, outside of Staten Island (which only has one rail line,) NYC has much flatter terrain than SF, and the East River is much narrower than the SF Bay, so you can build far more tunnels and bridges to carry subway trains between Manhattan and Brooklyn/Queens.

DC has "rolling hills" but they're nothing compared to the Bay Area's terrain. The only body of water to transverse is the Potomac, once again much narrower than the SF Bay.

[green_mariner]

All of this is quite ironic because the Bay Area's population density is caused by its geography

[ketch89]

Biggest obstacle is municipal/county boundaries. San Francisco cares about San Francisco. Palo Alto cares about Palo Alto. Little freaking Piedmont cares about Piedmont. A region that should have strong regional governance instead has 101 cities each vying for their own interests. Instead of strong institutions (that attract talented staff) you have worthless dead-end jobs with no potential for promotion, so our smaller cities are staffed by idiots (or at least, people with no ambition). If the region were merged into several large cities, it would be governed far better.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by MrJester

San Francisco has a far less comprehensive subway than D.C., despite the Bay Area being considerably more dense than D.C. and Northern Virginia/Maryland.

I firmly believe that San Francisco, given its density, has the potential to beat D.C. in subway transit if it were not for the mountainous terrain and expansive San Francisco Bay bisecting the Bay Area.

Who cares about 'beating' DC? We have the system that political will wanted back in the 1960s.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Biggest obstacle is municipal/county boundaries. San Francisco cares about San Francisco. Palo Alto cares about Palo Alto. Little freaking Piedmont cares about Piedmont. A region that should have strong regional governance instead has 101 cities each vying for their own interests. Instead of strong institutions (that attract talented staff) you have worthless dead-end jobs with no potential for promotion, so our smaller cities are staffed by idiots (or at least, people with no ambition). If the region were merged into several large cities, it would be governed far better.

Sounds like the Atlanta area. Several suburbs fighting and looking out for #1.

[llowllevellowll]

Classism and latent racism might be a pretty hefty obstacle.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by llowllevellowll

Classism and latent racism might be a pretty hefty obstacle.

Uh San Mateo and Santa Clara both opted out in the beginning and later regretted it, both have or are noe getting BART.

[MrJester]

OK, I get that the balkanization of Bay Area transit politics plays a big role, too.

BUT how big of a role do you think Geography plays in preventing BART expansion?

Even if Bay Area transit politics got sorted out ...

Tell me how you're going to build a BART station under twin peaks or Oakland Hills, for example. 200-300 foot elevators would be necessary but prohibitively expensive. Fact is, subway trains just can't ascend that steep of a slope unless they're funiculars (BART is not.)

Or tell me how you're going to justify the cost of building a second transbay crossing, say, from San Mateo to Hayward BART. The undersea tunneling will be prohibitively expensive and the actual on-land portion of the route will serve only a handful of cities (San Mateo, Foster City, and Hayward) that there would be no way to justify the cost. And this weird, fragmented layout to the Bay Area has everything to do with the giant Bay in the middle and the mountains, forcing everything onto narrow coastal strips.

[artemis78]

There isn't enough population density to warrant building BART in the Oakland Hills or other farther flung areas--there isn't a need for that level of transit service. The geography also influences housing density in those areas.

There will eventually be a second transbay crossing--planning is already underway. Cost will be justified in the same way that it is for any other major infrastructure project--when conditions without it get bad enough that it is critically needed, it will be built. There is a huge regional economic cost to traffic congestion and BART delays and overcrowding. Whatever is built will have a systemwide impact, though--part of the planning process is to ensure that the new crossing alleviates pressure on the Market Street corridor. I would not assume that necessarily looks like a South Alameda County/Peninsula crossing, though (and I wouldn't assume it's necessarily another tube, either--they are also looking at how to link BART into other commuter systems). It's worth following the feasibility study and alternatives development in the coming months to see.

Geography is really just a factor inasmuch as it affects cost. If the cost were less, it would probably have been built years ago. Because the geography requires far more costly solutions, it has taken 50+ years go get there (and years more before it is finally in the ground). So yes, it's probably one of the biggest obstacles, but it's really the same obstacle as cost.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Uh San Mateo and Santa Clara both opted out in the beginning and later regretted it, both have or are noe getting BART.

Yet you could wave at someone looking out from the top of Coit Tower and he'd wave back if you were dining on the Sausalito waterfront....from you could not get to him without car or boat. Marin dropped out from the start. Sure, Marin wanted to remain pastoral and mellow, but, let's face it, it definitely is topography that keeps Marin out of the system.

Think about it: the three closest towns to San Francisco are Sausalito, Belvedere and Tiburon. I'm talking about the "real San Francisco". Stepping across the street from Daly City to Parkmerced isn't like going to San Francisco.

Water is not the barrier. A BART bay crossing from Fisherman's Wharf to Tiburon would be about 7 miles; from the Ferry Building to Oakland is close to 13. The problem was not retrofitting the GGB for a lower level BART track. The problem is not getting to Marin in the first place....but what do you do once you get there?

Of course topography is an issue.