> Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad? You should try Dallas.
But at least you can park in Dallas, right? In SF public transport is poor and if you drive it is impossible to park and the hills make cycling and walking places hard work.
Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
11–20 of 112 posts
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#12This is a great overview of the history of SF's mass transit systems, but honestly, it's really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Was it better when the streetcars ran everywhere? Of course. But compared to cities like Boston or Dallas or Atlanta, SF's Muni and BART are amazing, though Caltrain is admittedly the weakest link of the system.
[deleted]
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#13> Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad? You should try Dallas.
The difference is that SF is dense and liberal - two things that tend to encourage good transit. High density means low cost to service, and a liberal populace means they're more willing to go for "big government" solutions to moving people around.
Compare v. Dallas.
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#14> Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
You should try Los Angeles.
Btw, decades ago, Los Angeles had a perfectly good commuter line system (aka Red Cars which was electric trolley car) that went EVERYWHERE including right on the beach. The bike lane on the famous Venice beach was actually where the rail used to be. One pic I saw showed the rail didn't run to the beach at a perpendicular angle. The rail ran parallel to the beach for some distance.
Check this article: http://www.travelmatters.org/about/los-angeles In 1920s, Los Angeles had the most extensive interurban railway system in the world, comprising 1,164 directional miles of track which, at its height, moved over 100 million passengers a year. In 1920s.
The rails however went into decline. No, not just decline. The rails were purposefully ripped up, mostly at the behest of the tire/auto/oil lobby. And the land that could've been kept around for possible use again as public transportation was paved over and forgotten.
Now it costs a billion just to build a few miles of subway that goes no where. Buying land is expensive due to real estate cost. Tunneling underground is expensive because of earthquake fears. And of course because it's so expensive, the 'rails' don't actually get to go where they need to.
They are talking about building a rail extension to LAX (main airport at LA) but the rails probably will stop a few miles from airport and passengers will have to switch from rail to shuttle bus. Part of reason is building cost (not cheap real estate and soft underground soil near LAX) and another reason is taxi/shuttle lobbies. And don't forget there's not much rail in LA anyways.
It's a madness.
Update: I know everybody hates LA but really nobody can beat LA. Who rips up 1000+ miles of perfectly good commuter rail line for no good reason? Nobody can beat LA in the field of short-sightedness.
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#15Anyone interested in this topic should check out the book "Street Fight: The Politics of Mobility in San Francisco". It's a great look at the history of San Francisco's transit network and the political battles that continue to shape it (usually for the worse).
http://www.amazon.com/Street-Fight-Politics-Mobility-Francis...
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#16As someone who doesn't live in the SF bay area, the sheer number of transportation systems confuses and puzzles me. Caltrain, BART, Muni, SamTrans, Golden Gate Transit, etc. Why aren't these systems unified under a single system map and timetable? In the Boston area we have the MBTA, in New York there's the MTA. Why does San Francisco need 5+?
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#17The common argument against overnight service in non-New York cities is "only two tracks! no time to do maintenance!": http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight
This seems to just completely ignore the existence of the 14th Street-Canarsie and Crosstown lines (L and G services), both of which are dual tracked, yet provide 24/7 service most of the time. The Second Avenue Subway will also be dual tracked (unfortunately).
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#18Best cities I've been that has the most decent public transportation ever: Barcelona and Berlin. Period. The rest of the cities it feels like a Mad Max movie.
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#19It is? I had little problems getting around SF when I was there. Especially the bus network is quite good.
Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?
#20One major challenge in the Bay Area often boils down to the lack of a government with the authority to collect taxes and impetus to spend them on Bay Area infrastructure. You either need three city governments and a pile of local ones to get on the same page, or persuade a state government that is not particularly keen on Bay Area spending and hamstrung by ballot initiatives.
This is true, but there's no reason that San Francisco itself couldn't have proper rapid transit instead of street cars. Even just removing cars from those streets and creating dedicated lanes (these exist in some places, of course) would be a huge help.