Live data from Hacker News

Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

alexmedearis.com

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#71
post #33
post #17

The 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).

> The Second Avenue Subway will also be dual tracked (unfortunately). When I worked in NYC, it always amazed me that people 100 years ago had the foresight to build a 4-track system to allow for express trains. A century later...

100 years ago, you could use cut and cover without enraging a bunch of UES rich people. Oh well.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#72
post #16

As 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+?

Over the centuries New York gained control over neighboring counties. In SF nothing like that ever happened, so SF itself is tiny and surrounded by the edges of many different large counties that do whatever they want.

Also the Bay Area takes anti-development NIMBYism as a sort of state religion – people actually actively try to block development of mass transit, something that would be unthinkably absurd to someone used to NY.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#73

Strange. I honestly wouldn't say it's bad at all. I can easily get from downtown SF to SoMa, Stonestown Galleria, Chinatown, the Cannery Area/Pier 39, Golden Gate Park, etc using just a handful of Muni buses/lightrails and probably no more than 2 transfers. That's just using Muni. For the rest of the Bay Area, I travel from San Jose to the northern Peninsula very often via some combination of Caltrain, Bart, and Vall…

Dude seriously? San Francisco is a couple of miles wide and yet it take as long to get from one side to the other using public transportation as it does for me to drive 10 times the distance.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#74
post #64

Public transportation is bad within San Francisco for historical reasons. In the late 1940's, the voters passed an initiative to save the streetcars, but what happened was that Muni used revenue bonds to purchases buses in a sweetheart deal with the motorbus companies. As a result, the there was a voter backlash, and Muni lost the ability to issue revenue bonds. Since the agency was now cash strapped, without a moder…

I'm really skeptical about "we'll see our public transportation system improve, at least in the city". Specially if I have the New York public system to look forward to. Its not exactly a success.

I think you have every right to be skeptical. The track record for our city employees and elected officials is abysmal. It is up to us, as voters, to maximize pressure on our political leaders and dole out consequence for failure.

I've outlined the tools we are using today to move forward, and I am still optimistic we will move to a world class transportation system in time.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#75
post #22
post #5

Because most of the transportation operates on public streets (busses and muni). This forces them to deal with traffic and pedestrian crowds, which make them no better than driving. If SF had a real subway system, things would probably be different.

The Green Line in Boston runs down a protected center path in the road for a significant portion. Is there a reason that SF can't carve out those lanes for exclusive Muni use?

There's actually one case where they're trying to do this:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/06/27/options-for-geary-brt-c...

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#76
There is some great history here but I wish he were not so dismissive of BART. I complain about it all the time -- yes trains get delayed sometimes -- but in the big scheme of things BART is simply magnificent. There's nothing quite like it in the country -- a high speed inter-city under-water under-ground train system. New York has the LIRR to Long Island and the Acela to DC, but it's got nothing on BART.

Yes, BART "fails" to reach the North and South bay, because those areas withdrew from the project in the early 1960s. But it links the peninsula down to Milbrae, including SFO, and all of the East Bay into San Francisco. Soon Oakland airport via direct rail, too.

And yes, intra-city transit in SF needs fixing. The Muni Metro points the way. But as long as companies like Twitter are being handed tax breaks that's not going to happen. Subways require a lot of capital and maintenance. (You may notice NYC has an income tax.)

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#77
post #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…

Actually, as a car-free resident of LA for close to a decade (grad school then work), I'd say LA's public transit system is pretty good, and the major obstacles to making it better are rampant NIMBYism and the Bus Riders' Union (aka the Bus Drivers' Union). The bus system is a well though-out grid (though you do often need to use buses from multiple agencies for historical reasons), with both local and express service on heavily used routes. There are extensive connections between bus and rail service, and connections between rail lines are also generally well-timed, so there isn't much waiting on the platform. There's also a contactless payment system (TAP) that works on almost all transit agencies in LA County.

Frankly, the at-grade Red Line system wouldn't fare any better than buses in today's LA traffic.

LACMTA has been expaning rail and "bus rapid transit" (Orange and Silver lines), but is hamstrung by neighborhood groups who bring frivolous lawsuits that only make the rail service less useful and more expensive. Some recent examples:

1) Residents near Dorsey High School sued LACMTA to stop the Expo Line (some social justice nonsense about how rail transit is for the 1%), which resulted only in millions of extra taxpayer costs and Expo Line trains having to stop before crossing Farmdale Ave (adding several minutes to every trip).

2) Beverly Hills has an enormous traffic problem on Wilshire Blvd., but has tried to stop all of the following: a freeway; signal priority for buses on Wilshire; bus lanes on Wilshire; and a subway extension under Wilshire (some law-and-order nonsense about how rail transit is for the 99%).

3) South San Fernando Valley residents wanted a subway instead of surface rail on what is now the Orange Line, and they lobbied the state legislature to make it illegal to build a surface rail line on the right of way... so they got Bus Rapid Transit, which uses extra-long buses. The infrastructure cost is about half that of rail, but the operating costs are three times as high (because the line is at capacity, and each bus holds 1/3rd as many passengers as a train).

Land acquisition is actually an insignificant cost in building LA rail transit lines because LACMTA already purchased the rights of way they need years ago for peanuts. The Expo Line and Orange Line rights of way were purchased directly from railroads that didn't want them anymore. The proposed Crenshaw Corridor and Gold Line Foothill Extension would mostly use old Southern Pacific rights of way (that LACMTA already owns).

Tunneling is expensive in any city, but how else are you going to fix traffic? There isn't room to expand surface streets, and if you thought it was difficult and expensive to get a light rail or subway built... whoa boy, you don't want to even think about a new freeway.

As for the airport connection: There's already a free shuttle from the Green Line (Aviation Station, I believe) that loops through all the terminals, just like the parking lot shuttles. LACMTA also runs "Flyaway" tour-style buses from LAX and Burbank to a bunch of places around the city, where they connect with other transit lines. The reason the train doesn't stop in the terminals is that the LA airport authority has been saying (for the last 30 years) that they're going to demolish and rebuild the terminals in a year or two.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#78
post #76

There is some great history here but I wish he were not so dismissive of BART. I complain about it all the time -- yes trains get delayed sometimes -- but in the big scheme of things BART is simply magnificent. There's nothing quite like it in the country -- a high speed inter-city under-water under-ground train system. New York has the LIRR to Long Island and the Acela to DC, but it's got nothing on BART. Yes, BART…

What is so sad is that your are right. BART is a wonderful way to get around when you compare it against the mass transit options of other cities in the US. And yet there is so much room for improvement with BART.

I just want to throw this in: Dallas has some of the worst mass transit options. Many of the trains won't even run on Sunday. And every time you cross the street you feel like you are about to run down by some oversized, overpowered vehicle that could hold a dozen people but only holds one.

Re: Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad?

#80
post #76

There is some great history here but I wish he were not so dismissive of BART. I complain about it all the time -- yes trains get delayed sometimes -- but in the big scheme of things BART is simply magnificent. There's nothing quite like it in the country -- a high speed inter-city under-water under-ground train system. New York has the LIRR to Long Island and the Acela to DC, but it's got nothing on BART. Yes, BART…

Just to put things in perspective with some NYC area vs Bay Area commuter rail/heavy rapid transit systems -

Commuter rail:

  LIRR:           97,090,300 rides/year, 336 miles, 124 stations, 24/7 operation

  Metro-North:    83,326,200 rides/year, 330 miles, 121 stations, ~21.5 hours/day operation

  NJ Transit:     81,942,000 rides/year, 398 miles, 164 stations, ~22.5 hours/day operation

  Caltrain:       16,294,900 rides/year,  77 miles,  32 stations, 19 hrs/weekday & 12 hrs/day weekends
Heavy rapid transit:

  NYC Subway:  2,651,804,600 rides/year, 232 miles, 468 stations, 24/7 operation

  BART:          124,747,400 rides/year, 104 miles,  44 stations, ~20 hrs/weekday & ~17 hrs/day weekends
More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_tra...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_commuter_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rai...

Post reply on HN