Fantasy BART (San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland: rent, condos, school)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by edsg25

of all the true rapid transits systems (not light rail) in the nation, the two that seem to me to have a true and extensive suburban coverage are BART and DC's Metro.

But Metro is much more urbancentric than BART. It really is designed to bring the periphery to the core. and as those lines from the VA and MD suburban areas converge in the capital, they give Washington exceedingly high coverage.

So in that sense, a system that really puts the mix between city and suburban, Metro may stand in a class by itself.

BART, on the other hand, has always been more interested in area wide coverage. This may be due to the unique nature of the Bay Area. San Francisco may be (and is) one of the world's greatest cities, one of exceeding importance), but it would be low among cities in the nation in terms of how they dominate their metro area. There may be US metro areas like D/FW or M/SP where two major cities exist, but I can't think of any metro area where there are three except the Bay Area (SF/Oak/SJ). Indeed, parts of the Bay Area (the peninsula, Marin, parts of East Bay not in Oakland) see themselves as their own economic spheres. The very concept of "reverse commute is relatively weak in the Bay Area (although fully realizing that commutes into downtown SF is still extremely important).

As a result, SF has only one set of tracks running through the cities (albeit it heavy one that carries a number of lines). Central Oakland/Berkeley have more concentration, but that is due to the the east bay lines that converge there.

So here's my point (and my question):

when I started this topic, I really was emphasizing the "fantasy" in "Fantasy BART" because we are now living in economic times when this kind of stuff can only be fantasy (hopefully this will not always be the case).

So thinking more on need than the ability to put $ together today to pull it off:

would you like to see BART increase coverage in its urban cores? That would be more San Francisco than any other place. It would include that central portion of Oakland and surrounding Berkeley and Alameda. It may include augmenting the new service that will extend to San Jose.

Should BART be providing real city wide coverage in SF that would serve to connect one part of the city with another or should such comprehensive service be left to Muni Metro (considering that only under Market Street does it run underground and removed from city traffic)?

not vouching for its functionality, but just for its design, the following may be the best looking map of a truly extensive BART system I've ever seen (with the obvious inclusions of the original northern SF/Marin coverage that was supposed to be BART as well as making a loop from SF to Oakland to SJ to SF, as well as providing express trains from SFO to OAK with precious few intermediate stops):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjprz/7069644439/

As far as SF is concerned, BART really missed the boat by not having a Geary line. The Geary corridor is heavily traveled and anyone who's ever ridden Munis 38 line can attest. It runs double long articulated buses every 3 to 5 minutes and they're always packed. Sometimes you can't get on them. So a fantasy Bart should split off at Montgomery and then have stops along Geary after that something like; Leavenworth, Van Ness, Fillmore, Masonic etc. to the beach.

As far as Oakland is concerned, perhaps a route following 580 with stops like Oakland Zoo, Mills College/Laurel, Diamond, Grand Lake. Where it should go from here who knows.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

As far as SF is concerned, BART really missed the boat by not having a Geary line. The Geary corridor is heavily traveled and anyone who's ever ridden Munis 38 line can attest. It runs double long articulated buses every 3 to 5 minutes and they're always packed. Sometimes you can't get on them. So a fantasy Bart should split off at Montgomery and then have stops along Geary after that something like; Leavenworth, Van Ness, Fillmore, Masonic etc. to the beach.

The one problem with adding lines is: the fight over which neighborhoods get the stops. If there are too many stops, it really slows down the trains. But I wholeheartedly agree, Geary desperately needs a BART line. Even riding the 38 Limited, it seems to take forever to get from downtown to the beach.

[Senno]

Everytime this thread pops up on the front page I think of the Simpsons.


Simpsons Shorts-Bart's Little Fantasy - YouTube

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by edsg25

of all the true rapid transits systems (not light rail) in the nation, the two that seem to me to have a true and extensive suburban coverage are BART and DC's Metro.

But Metro is much more urbancentric than BART. It really is designed to bring the periphery to the core. and as those lines from the VA and MD suburban areas converge in the capital, they give Washington exceedingly high coverage.

So in that sense, a system that really puts the mix between city and suburban, Metro may stand in a class by itself.

Well, but does DC really have a downtown like SF? I'm not really familiar with DC (only been there twice, and as a kid) but it seems to have several job centers scattered around the city, as well as some important job centers just outside of the city, like Bethesda, Silver Spring, the Pentagon, Arlington, etc. That means it's easy to pick where to route suburban lines, and gives more support for having several lines running through DC rather than just one corridor like in SF.

SF is the other way around. Downtown SF is a MAJOR job center for the whole area, so it makes sense that all lines go there. It would be nice to have some other routes, but having all routes go through downtown is more important than having a line that doesn't go there. (for one thing, on BART you need to make few transfers, whereas on DC Metro you might have to make several...though Metro does hit up a wider variety of areas) Downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley have a decent amount of jobs nearby, but just about anywhere else in the Bay Area is suburban and sprawly, and even the other suburban towns that have BART stations rarely have jobs within walking distance of the stations--generally they are only used for suburbanites to park and ride to downtown SF. Silicon Valley and many areas on the Peninsula have a lot of jobs but they are almost always in suburban settings that encourage driving to work rather than public transit, and are so scattered that a single line like Caltrain won't serve them. There are a lot of jobs all over the suburban Bay Area but they are similarly scattered around in suburban parking lots.

So, really, BART does the best it can. It's why on my fantasy transit map I focused on getting more people from further out to downtown SF. Until suburban employers start clustering more in central areas you just can't serve them well with public transit. Imagine being able to live near Dolores Park, walk to a conveniently located Caltrain station, and get to work at your job at a major transit village/office park next to the Mountain View station in 30 minutes.

Anothing thing that is cool about BART is that it actually runs right under downtown SF...heavy commuter rail in other cities often does what Caltrain does and stop at a major depot quite a ways from where most jobs are, like the Union Stations in LA and Chicago for instance.

[04kL4nD]

DC's metro blows BART away

It's faster, cleaner, runs longer, and covers wayyyyyy more area. They really aren't even in the same league...

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

The one problem with adding lines is: the fight over which neighborhoods get the stops. If there are too many stops, it really slows down the trains. But I wholeheartedly agree, Geary desperately needs a BART line. Even riding the 38 Limited, it seems to take forever to get from downtown to the beach.

I think it should pretty much share the 38L's stops for the most part; Levenworth, Van Ness, then to Fillmore and off to Divisidero and Masonic. Those are the busiest stops. Or we could skip Levenworth. Either way it would still be faster than the 38L just from not having to deal with traffic and stop lights.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Well, but does DC really have a downtown like SF? I'm not really familiar with DC (only been there twice, and as a kid) but it seems to have several job centers scattered around the city, as well as some important job centers just outside of the city, like Bethesda, Silver Spring, the Pentagon, Arlington, etc. That means it's easy to pick where to route suburban lines, and gives more support for having several lines running through DC rather than just one corridor like in SF.

SF is the other way around. Downtown SF is a MAJOR job center for the whole area, so it makes sense that all lines go there. It would be nice to have some other routes, but having all routes go through downtown is more important than having a line that doesn't go there. (for one thing, on BART you need to make few transfers, whereas on DC Metro you might have to make several...though Metro does hit up a wider variety of areas) Downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley have a decent amount of jobs nearby, but just about anywhere else in the Bay Area is suburban and sprawly, and even the other suburban towns that have BART stations rarely have jobs within walking distance of the stations--generally they are only used for suburbanites to park and ride to downtown SF. Silicon Valley and many areas on the Peninsula have a lot of jobs but they are almost always in suburban settings that encourage driving to work rather than public transit, and are so scattered that a single line like Caltrain won't serve them. There are a lot of jobs all over the suburban Bay Area but they are similarly scattered around in suburban parking lots.

So, really, BART does the best it can. It's why on my fantasy transit map I focused on getting more people from further out to downtown SF. Until suburban employers start clustering more in central areas you just can't serve them well with public transit. Imagine being able to live near Dolores Park, walk to a conveniently located Caltrain station, and get to work at your job at a major transit village/office park next to the Mountain View station in 30 minutes.

Anothing thing that is cool about BART is that it actually runs right under downtown SF...heavy commuter rail in other cities often does what Caltrain does and stop at a major depot quite a ways from where most jobs are, like the Union Stations in LA and Chicago for instance.

Washington's downtown doesn't come close to comparing with SF's; it is not in the same league as downtowns are in places like New York (midtown and downtown), Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston. But most of the government buildings are in the area adjacent to downtown on both sides of the mall, so it is attracting plenty of people to the central core of the city.

I agree with you that SF is the ultimate hub of the bay area and there is no place like downtown SF with such concentration. Yet the Bay Area, as I noted, still is far flung and resists centralization the way that traditional one major city metros do (or even the two city metros like M/SP and D/FW).

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I agree with you that SF is the ultimate hub of the bay area and there is no place like downtown SF with such concentration. Yet the Bay Area, as I noted, still is far flung and resists centralization the way that traditional one major city metros do (or even the two city metros like M/SP and D/FW).

Well, sure, it's far-flung. For one thing, there's a major body of water right in the middle of it. But isn't it somewhat comparable to the DC area with its MD suburbs? Except that the different MD spurs aren't connected to each other, AFAIK.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, sure, it's far-flung. For one thing, there's a major body of water right in the middle of it. But isn't it somewhat comparable to the DC area with its MD suburbs? Except that the different MD spurs aren't connected to each other, AFAIK.

"there's a major body of water right in the middle".....

thus explains why the Bay Area differs from any other metro area in the United States. Everything is affected by it, including the very nature of BART.

[wazmoot]

Why, o why isn't there an "iron horse" BART line between, say, Dublin/Pleasanton and Walnut Creek? Seems like there would be enough demand.