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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Should Golden Gate County be formed?
Yes 17 31.48%
No 37 68.52%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2010, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,075 posts, read 2,882,263 times
Reputation: 2320
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellalunatic View Post
You're right that IS a hard sell. What would those 'attractive features be exactly'? Please explain.
Mainly what I said: BART, if possible. What would BART offer Marin it currently doesn't have? Plenty. I hardly think that bus service is the most efficient way of going from Marin to SF. And ferry service tends to be too limited (serving places like Sausalito and Tiburon, but leaving much of the county unserved. And once in SF, the connection is mainly to the Ferry Bldg so it is not designed to connect Marin with anything but DT SF.

I mentioned a BART connection from SF to Marin through the Golden Gate (be it on the bridge or a tunnel) and also a filler line through the peninsula that would connect the BART ext to DT SJ with SFO.

But if rapid transit expansion is really worth the buck and would actually pay back the Bay Area great economic dividends, then a third set of track could be warranted, too: a Marin-East Bay connection. I don't know about how the R-SR Bridge could accomodate this (as I don't on the GGB either), but that loop could also be useful in the way the SF-Oak-SJ one I described before.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bellalunatic View Post
Doubtful. DC and the SF bay area are two different animals.
Of course it is not. Metro is a more traditional service, servicing one big city. It differs from the transit systems in New York (where there is no subway connection outside city limits unless in the NYS portion of the metro area (Westchester and LI) or Chicago (where CTA has very limited suburban extensions) in that Metro has an extensive suburban service as well as city. But, of course, its lines all converge on DC where in BART they do not, nor do they offer extensive in city service in SF.

My suggestion that BART could use Metro as a model didn't mean to redesign the BART system, only to think in my expansive and extensive terms of coverage like Metro tries to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2010, 11:04 AM
 
Location: West Coast Wanderer
12,392 posts, read 10,377,534 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
But, of course, its lines all converge on DC where in BART they do not, nor do they offer extensive in city service in SF.
I think that's because BART was designed to get you into the city, not necessarily service all parts of it. Once in the city, SF's muni is what one would use. Just like in the east bay, BART's corridor connects to key routes and downtown areas where AC Transit runs. From there one can get to most places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,769 posts, read 16,457,939 times
Reputation: 2521
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 03:12 AM
 
Location: California
142 posts, read 198,902 times
Reputation: 61
^^^^^^^^^
??????????????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2010, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,075 posts, read 2,882,263 times
Reputation: 2320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
I think that's because BART was designed to get you into the city, not necessarily service all parts of it. Once in the city, SF's muni is what one would use. Just like in the east bay, BART's corridor connects to key routes and downtown areas where AC Transit runs. From there one can get to most places.
sure; that was the thinking. and let's face it: it made sense when the system first went into operation and was not viewed to have as major a role as it has today.

muni metro could still keep its routes going but BART could serve the city more extensively.

Neither systems provide much service to the critically important northern portions of the city. Muni doesn't serve the Richmond as it does the Sunset. A Marin BART line would rectify the lack of service to the general north waterfront areas if the connection was across the GG.

I had made some comparisons between BART and DC Metro in a previous post and another forumer mentioned how different the two systems are. He was right. And BART itself due to the unusual topography of the Bay Area is an original; there is nothing comparable.

But perhaps BART needs to change from one form of original to another. Again, I'm thinking and I'm thinking even in a time of less, it isn't a matter if the Bay Area CAN afford it; it is a matter if it can afford NOT to do it. Rapid transit is the answer to a region that does not want to be chocked any further by car and won't be able to afford to fill the tanks in the future.

So what should BART become. I say, it is three fold:

Keep the excellent structure in place that is designed to connect the various parts of the Bay Area connected

Make the extensions around the south bay to loop between SF, Oak, and SJ and a northern loop of Marin, E Bay, SF.

Take the most dense and compact parts of the Bay Area..SF, the East Bay core around Oak, Berk, Alameda...perhaps in Silicon Valley from SJ to PA....and provide those areas with more intense typical in-city rapid transit service.

So if you were to look at the future BART map I'd envision, you'd see a blanket coverage in three locations with connecting lines going between them and all other parts of the Bay.

Could there be a better bang for the buck than that for the Bay Area: one comprehensive rapid transit system, not dependent on connection to heavy rail, but friendly for bus links throughout the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2010, 12:52 AM
 
Location: West Coast Wanderer
12,392 posts, read 10,377,534 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Neither systems provide much service to the critically important northern portions of the city. Muni doesn't serve the Richmond as it does the Sunset. A Marin BART line would rectify the lack of service to the general north waterfront areas if the connection was across the GG.
True, but Muni operates buses that do serve those areas so they probably feel no need for extending light rail. It sucks when the bus and light rail systems are the same company, trust me I know.

Quote:
I had made some comparisons between BART and DC Metro in a previous post and another forumer mentioned how different the two systems are. He was right. And BART itself due to the unusual topography of the Bay Area is an original; there is nothing comparable.
Very true.

Quote:
But perhaps BART needs to change from one form of original to another. Again, I'm thinking and I'm thinking even in a time of less, it isn't a matter if the Bay Area CAN afford it; it is a matter if it can afford NOT to do it. Rapid transit is the answer to a region that does not want to be chocked any further by car and won't be able to afford to fill the tanks in the future.
I agree with this. The Bay Area Counties really need to get their act together on this.

Quote:
[• Take the most dense and compact parts of the Bay Area..SF, the East Bay core around Oak, Berk, Alameda...perhaps in Silicon Valley from SJ to PA....and provide those areas with more intense typical in-city rapid transit service.
But how would this be done? Berkeley in particular is kind of weird when it comes to BART. They didn't even want BART above ground at all which is why it dives underground near MLK and Adeline then resurfaces in El Cerrito.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2010, 01:29 AM
 
Location: California
142 posts, read 198,902 times
Reputation: 61
Better regional transportation, this would be one of the many benefits of Golden Gate County.
Imagine getting into Bart in a station in Mountain View and taking it all the way to Novato. These are the type of things that will take place if the GGC is formed. Many mass projects that are long overdue will happen because of the greater regional oversight and tax base. San Francisco will be forced to interact and govern directly with San Mateo and Marin.(you would have to reach an agreement because your in the same county. None of this political stalemate like we see whats going on today on issues like transportation and others.)
Look at all the problems going on with the High Speed Bullet Train from SF to LA. Cities like Palo Alto and Burlingame are fighting against it. They dont see the benefits of a high speed rail to the region, they only see how this is going to effect their tiny little town and their citizens and thats all they care about. Problem is Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park, Burlingame and Belmont are all rich cities. So they have alot of say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2010, 01:45 AM
 
Location: West Coast Wanderer
12,392 posts, read 10,377,534 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Problem is Palo Alto, Atherton, Menlo Park, Burlingame and Belmont are all rich cities. So they have alot of say.
I hear you on that. Those rich cities have a lot of pull. Likewise so would a wealthy county which is why Marin County would never go for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2010, 12:02 AM
 
Location: California
142 posts, read 198,902 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
I hear you on that. Those rich cities have a lot of pull. Likewise so would a wealthy county which is why Marin County would never go for this.
Actually all those cities mentioned are in San Mateo county not Marin with the exception of Palo Alto in Santa Clara county.

Truth of the matter is that joining is for the better good long term. Marin county might not see any benefits right away but I can guarentee that if the GGC was formed, in 50 years Marin would be a whole diffrent place then if they didnt join the GGC. I can see Bart in Marin, I can see more infurstructure, I can see new maverlous public work projects, I can see the national parks and other parks getting the funding they need and more.

Nothing is for sure but I can see Marin being a better place in 50 years then if left alone much less a 100 years
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2010, 12:49 AM
 
Location: West Coast Wanderer
12,392 posts, read 10,377,534 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Actually all those cities mentioned are in San Mateo county not Marin with the exception of Palo Alto in Santa Clara county.
Burlingame is also in San Mateo County
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 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.

2005-2014, 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 - Top