Subways of the world, to scale
fakeisthenewreal.org
Subways of the world, to scale
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#2Including the S-Bahn of Berlin but not the RER of Paris or the S-Bahn of Munich looks like an arbitrary decision. Yes, I know the shapes of the pantographs differ, but that's not relevant to me at that scale.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#3As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length (http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t...)
I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it doesn't seem to be cost-effectiveness driving them to do it.
Interestingly, Seattle made a special institutional provision to ensure this doesn't occur there - they have a system of "sub-area equity", whereby the tax revenues for each of several regions must be spent within that region. So, for example, political power in the suburbs or a desire to expand the agency's tax base doesn't drive them to unfairly allocate transit where it's relatively unneeded, and they can get their second central tunnel whenever the tax revenues for the core call for it.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#4As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…
Don't trust a Houstonian to interpret SF transit!
MUNI light rail, subways, and buses handle most shorter trips within SF -- so Metrorail is more comparable to a mix of MUNI plus BART. (It's possible for visitors to the bay area, or even residents of outlying suburbs, to almost completely overlook MUNI trains. I know when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART into SF, I had no appreciation of all the places MUNI went, even though the downtown MUNI stations are stacked above the BART tubes so you see them while riding the escalator up.)
BART was always a longer-trip system, by design.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#5Including the S-Bahn of Berlin but not the RER of Paris or the S-Bahn of Munich looks like an arbitrary decision. Yes, I know the shapes of the pantographs differ, but that's not relevant to me at that scale.
Agreed that the decision about what above-ground rail to include seems very arbitrary. The Tokyo map seems to only include the "subway" lines, for example, while the JR rail lines serve the same function + even share stations within the city limits.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#6As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…
i love it when a metro system goes the distance. what with bikes, buses and feet, getting around a city isn't a big deal. however, getting a 1 or 2 hr drive away from the city is a huge deal. having a cheap and convenient way to get to those beaches, state parks, non-neighboring towns, etc, is so amazingly awesome---worth it.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#7As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…
Don't trust a Houstonian to interpret SF transit! MUNI light rail, subways, and buses handle most shorter trips within SF -- so Metrorail is more comparable to a mix of MUNI plus BART. (It's possible for visitors to the bay area, or even residents of outlying suburbs, to almost completely overlook MUNI trains. I know when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART into SF, I had no appreciation of all the places MUNI went, e…
Alright, so if I'm evaluating the benefits of adding an additional 20 miles of track length to the system, should I added at the low-density edges or the high-density core? How would you evaluate the benefits of the two options? He's said that the core option would get several times more ridership.
And I'm sorry you bring up his city of residence. As a Texas-born New Yorker, I'm particularly sensitive to this fallacious ad hominem. Or should I discounting your arguments because you're presumably Californian and your government isn't particularly high-functioning?
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#8The Vancouver Translink map is missing the new Canada Line.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#9As for the effects of these differences in layouts, here's an interesting analysis of SF Bart vs. DC Metro, which finds the DC network-style system far more effective - 2.5x the ridership for the same track length ( http://www.ctchouston.org/intermodality/2006/05/06/tale-of-t... ) I'm not sure what institutional reason leads Bart to continue expanding outward, rather than running new tunnels in SF proper, but it does…
i love it when a metro system goes the distance. what with bikes, buses and feet, getting around a city isn't a big deal. however, getting a 1 or 2 hr drive away from the city is a huge deal. having a cheap and convenient way to get to those beaches, state parks, non-neighboring towns, etc, is so amazingly awesome---worth it.
Let's put it another way: when is that love not worth it? Is it worth $50 a trip? $100? $500? At what point do low ridership numbers to far-away places cease justifying the construction of dedicated fixed-rail infrastructure? (the highest of the high-density modes of transit)
I may love taking a train straight to Paris, but that doesn't mean it should be a part of my city's metro system.
Re: Subways of the world, to scale
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't trust a Houstonian to interpret SF transit! MUNI light rail, subways, and buses handle most shorter trips within SF -- so Metrorail is more comparable to a mix of MUNI plus BART. (It's possible for visitors to the bay area, or even residents of outlying suburbs, to almost completely overlook MUNI trains. I know when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART into SF, I had no appreciation of all the places MUNI went, e…
Alright, so if I'm evaluating the benefits of adding an additional 20 miles of track length to the system, should I added at the low-density edges or the high-density core? How would you evaluate the benefits of the two options? He's said that the core option would get several times more ridership. And I'm sorry you bring up his city of residence. As a Texas-born New Yorker, I'm particularly sensitive to this fallaci…
San Francisco faces a lot of problems which DC doesn't when designing a subway system. Apart from the fact that there's a honking great bay in the middle of the metropolitan area, I'm not sure it's possible for BART to serve much more of San Francisco proper than it already does.
Why? Well, if you go north of the BART line you're rapidly into the hills, so either you have to take the trains up the grade (bad idea) or you have to build your stations thirty storeys underground (also a bad idea). If you go past the hills and up to the Marina, you're into reclaimed land so I don't think it's possible to build a tunnel (civil engineers out there to comment?)
You could probably extend it out into the Richmond and Sunset districts, but that part of town is served reasonably by buses anyway.
While I hate to defend BART almost as much as I hate to ride on BART, its main purpose is really all about linking the cities of the East Bay with San Francisco, and San Francisco with the airport. Comparing it to a proper metro system in a city not subject to the weird geographical limitations imposed by the hills and the Bay isn't really fair.