Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-12-2013, 02:35 PM
 
6,802 posts, read 6,712,534 times
Reputation: 1911

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
You can only add so many lanes to a freeway. After you've expanded it to a certain point, you can't just keep widening it, to 10 lanes each way, or something. It just isn't doable in a lot of places. That's why planners look at public transport, at different ways of expanding it, creating new systems, and all.

San Fran was an employment draw even without BART. BART allowed people to live farther away, and therefore more cheaply, than they would have otherwise, and spared them a long commute by car. Remember, the AC bus system was serving the near East Bay. Was the growth in downtown SF jobs due to BART, or to other factors? Or both and more? BART may have played a facilitating role, but wouldn't the main spur have been economic? I'd be interested in seeing an analysis of it, it's an interesting question. You're saying that without the ability to move in vast hordes of workers, any economic factors creating new jobs wouldn't have been able to reach fruition? Makes sense. Has downtown SF job growth really exploded to that extent, since whenever you're comparing it to?
Seems like it. For instance a whole lot of insurance companies closed down in Fresno and relocated operations to the Bay Area in cost cutting moves. Crazy that they closed down in cheap Fresno to consolidate into the bay area, or even Sacto, but they did...

I mighta peeked into them 3 pages, lol.

 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 4,009,679 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senno View Post
We kinda jumped to 50 years there though. I will be alive in 50 maybe anywho...

I refuse to read the rest of the 3 pages that exploded since I went out and helped the house painter tape windows. Holy cow...
My appeal is unquestionable. Most popular thread in this forum.
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 4,009,679 times
Reputation: 624
2nd BART tube is the only way to solve BART's capacity problems.
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:39 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,188 posts, read 107,809,412 times
Reputation: 116087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senno View Post
Seems like it. For instance a whole lot of insurance companies closed down in Fresno and relocated operations to the Bay Area in cost cutting moves. Crazy that they closed down in cheap Fresno to consolidate into the bay area, or even Sacto, but they did...
hm... that is odd. So...SF area had more workers, and higher-educated ones? But still, how would such a move involve "cost-cutting"? And I wonder at what point BART driving econ development, as someone argued, becomes: econ development driving BART expansion. I'm not sure I like this trend you've pointed out, if it is a trend.
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:40 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,980 posts, read 32,631,650 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
I remember someone else commenting about this, on the BART thread a few months ago. So the proposal for a 2nd tube was generated as a result of this congestion at the outer reaches of each line? The idea being that it's better to start now, than wait for the system to reach overload, and then begin building? There's some merit to that argument, but where would all the money come from? Not only to build a 2nd tube, but to run extra trains on that tube? If BART can't even afford to run a decent number of trains with an adequate number of cars now?

Not that we can't dream...
Well I don't think it has to do with just the "outer reaches" of the system at all but the entire system. Other parts face overcrowding now.

Where to get the money? Well that is always the golden question with any transit agency and there are a variety of sources. BART actually does quite well at the farebox, best in the nation after the NYC subway.
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:42 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,188 posts, read 107,809,412 times
Reputation: 116087
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
2nd BART tube is the only way to solve BART's capacity problems.
BART's future projected capacity problems. Most of the current capacity problems can be solved by improving funding so the number and frequency of trains can increase.
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:44 PM
 
6,802 posts, read 6,712,534 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
hm... that is odd. So...SF area had more workers, and higher-educated ones? But still, how would such a move involve "cost-cutting"? And I wonder at what point BART driving econ development, as someone argued, becomes: econ development driving BART expansion. I'm not sure I like this trend you've pointed out, if it is a trend.
We didn't like it in Fresno either generally...

They cut their overall costs by losing the rents, etc and running 1 big office in the Bay Area instead of 1 in Fresno and 1 in the Bay Area. A lot of trained people have relocated to LA, SF or Sacto as a result in the insurance industry. Since the HQ's of the companies in CA are generally in those places, they weren't gonna relocate the HQ's to Fresno.

It is a bit of a chicken and egg. Build it and they will come. Or they come expecting to find it...
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:47 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,188 posts, read 107,809,412 times
Reputation: 116087
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Well I don't think it has to do with just the "outer reaches" of the system at all but the entire system. Other parts face overcrowding now.

Where to get the money? Well that is always the golden question with any transit agency and there are a variety of sources. BART actually does quite well at the farebox, best in the nation after the NYC subway.
If it were so easy for BART to get money for operations (assuming money for construction of a 2nd line would come from Fed. sources, bond issues, a regional hike on sales tax, or whatever), they wouldn't be in the pickle they've been in for the last 20 years. They'd be running enough trains with enough cars, and there wouldn't be maintenance issues. I realize they're enacting a plan to address that, but it's a bit late. The point is simply that it hasn't been that easy for them to raise enough money for operations. The system began experiencing problems back in the 90's, IIRC.

Is this turning into another BART thread? Maybe it's inevitable...
 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,980 posts, read 32,631,650 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
If it were so easy for BART to get money for operations (assuming money for construction of a 2nd line would come from Fed. sources, bond issues, a regional hike on sales tax, or whatever), they wouldn't be in the pickle they've been in for the last 20 years. They'd be running enough trains with enough cars, and there wouldn't be maintenance issues. I realize they're enacting a plan to address that, but it's a bit late. The point is simply that it hasn't been that easy for them to raise enough money for operations. The system began experiencing problems back in the 90's, IIRC.

Is this turning into another BART thread? Maybe it's inevitable...
I never said it was "easy" at all, it's never easy for any transit agency to get state and federal funds especially for big ticket items.

I don't recall BART having capacity problems in the 1990's. I'm also not sure they anticipated the ridership and growth they are currently experiencing.
 
Old 03-12-2013, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 4,009,679 times
Reputation: 624
BART is simply too old as well. The trains look like they belong in the 60/70s.
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top