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 02-22-2015, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,653 posts, read 67,476,702 times
Reputation: 21228

Advertisements

Great idea.

AC Transit Launching Double-Decker Bus Pilot Program, Passengers Ride Free « CBS San Francisco
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2015, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
13,561 posts, read 10,348,473 times
Reputation: 8252
That would be great in terms of increasing passenger carrying capacity - but route planning and deployment may be restricted to routes where there are insufficiently low overpasses or other height restrictions (e.g. overhead electrical cables for Muni streetcars in SF) exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2015, 01:12 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,233,250 times
Reputation: 2538
Muni tried this too several years ago, but rejected it after running test buses for a while. I remember hearing/reading some people complain that they thought it was unsafe to have a large area of the bus that the driver couldn't see, but I don't know what the reason for rejecting them was. Wikipedia says there was also some concern for dwell times, as it would take longer to load/unload passengers. I wonder what's different with AC transit that makes them an option?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2015, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,855,940 times
Reputation: 28563
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Muni tried this too several years ago, but rejected it after running test buses for a while. I remember hearing/reading some people complain that they thought it was unsafe to have a large area of the bus that the driver couldn't see, but I don't know what the reason for rejecting them was. Wikipedia says there was also some concern for dwell times, as it would take longer to load/unload passengers. I wonder what's different with AC transit that makes them an option?
It looks like AC Transit is deploying on the core and Transbay routes. Most of these routes travel mostly on larger wider streets so height issues should not be significant. And there are not tight turns. On a Transbay route offboarding will not be as much of an issue as there is more stop consolidation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2015, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,132,725 times
Reputation: 3145
Good idea. Golden Gate Transit should follow suit to/from Marin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2015, 11:52 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,067,341 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
Good idea. Golden Gate Transit should follow suit to/from Marin.
I always wondered why the Golden Gate Bridge was not designed to accommodate trains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 08:08 AM
 
365 posts, read 779,493 times
Reputation: 350
I'm fine with it as long as they have the padded coach seating, over head luggage racks, reading lights, and air conditioning like they have on the new green buses they have in the transbay fleet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,132,725 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
I always wondered why the Golden Gate Bridge was not designed to accommodate trains.
No. Just no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,855,940 times
Reputation: 28563
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
I always wondered why the Golden Gate Bridge was not designed to accommodate trains.
The Bay Bridge did, But they got removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2015, 11:36 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,980 posts, read 32,627,760 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
I always wondered why the Golden Gate Bridge was not designed to accommodate trains.
When Marin County was being considered for BART service originally I believe that is how trains were suppose to get there, using a modified lower deck of the GGB to run a rail line.
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:


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. The time now is 05:16 PM.

© 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