As 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.
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.)
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?
Y'all need to take a chill pill. As I'm a New York-born, Houston-raised, SF resident, no ad hominem was intended, except to emphasize that outsiders can miss things obvious to a resident. That's why I also mentioned that even when I lived in Berkeley, and took BART to SF regularly, I didn't understand MUNI.
The link you provided overlooked the key fact that SF has another system that's far more like SF's version of DC's Metrorail: MUNI -- even though the MUNI cars and payment-mechanism doesn't look as much like Metrorail as BART does.
The idea of extending BART to provide more central-city service isn't even considered, because the BART system was created primarily to serve regional, long-haul, city-to-city needs. BART is the LIRR or PATH trains, not the MTA subways, of the bay area.
The internal SF system at the dense core is being extended -- a controversial new 'Central Subway' from Chinatown to CalTrain/SOMA -- and it will be part of MUNI, not BART.
And you pointing out that the California state government isn't high-functioning? Well, that's just mean. Fortunately, as an authentic Tex-Yorker, I have a tough skin and am not particularly sensitive to such slights.
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.
I'm not an engineer, but I live in the Netherlands, so I am qualified to tell you that it is possible to build tunnels under reclaimed land. Just like with tunnels under a waterway, you just have to take some precautions to prevent the tunnel from flooding or floating.
Embarcadero station is built in landfill, but it does make things more difficult. None of the San Francisco subway plans of the past ever attempted to serve Russian Hill very well. A line on Geary (or Post or O'Farrell) was the inevitable closest proposal every time.
- My understanding is that BART was originally intended to go around the entire bay, but budget squabbles among the counties led Santa Clara (San Jose), San Mateo (the Peninsula), and Marina to drop out (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_Rapid_T...).
- The D.C. Metro is actually based on BART and uses the same trains, ticketing system, and fare structure originally designed for BART.
It was always optimistic to think that BART would ring the bay. Santa Clara County was never part of the District to begin with. San Mateo County dropped out because they already had the SP commuter service (today's Caltrain) and didn't think BART was worth the money. Marin County was asked to leave after San Mateo County did because of doubt over whether the Golden Gate Bridge was structurally capable of carrying trains and because the county's low population density couldn't support their share of the cost. The Geary line within San Francisco remained in the plan at that time but was dropped to cut the cost of the initial system far enough that it could be funded.
That said, the original express intent of BART was to relieve freeway congestion from car commuters, not to provide an urban transit system. The San Francisco city government pushed the district to make BART as useful within the city as a one-line system could be, but they had to fight for it (to get three stations beyond what the BART planners wanted to build), and the district has never shaken off its suburban bias.
I certainly did read the whole thing, hoping to find some acknowledgement of MUNI. (He finally gets to it in the separate comments page.)
He doesn't detail his living experience for SF, but for DC, it's one summer. As I noted, you can be a bay area resident for years and easily overlook SF MUNI, if you're not in the city proper and mostly ride BART.
Re: Muni - Confirmed. I've lived in the Bay area (Oakland, Sunnyvale, San Mateo, Redwood Cit) for 14 years, do not drive, and take public transit 100% of the time. I used to work in Mountain View, and live in Oakland, and so took buses, shuttles, and Bart twice a Day.
In 14 years I've heard of "Muni" but never actually rode on of their train/buses - though, as you mentioned, I _see_ that "Muni" platform every single day when taking Bart.
From what I understand, BART is not meant to be a local subway type system. It's heavy rail for moving between different cities in the greater Bay Area. It just happens to have several stops in SF. (Thus the acronym Bay Area Rapid Transit).
MUNI is the equivalent of subway/bus in SF (though how well it handles that job is up for debate).
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.
On the face of it, it seems like there should be an inverse relationship between the people paying the most taxes and the areas of Seattle most in need of public transit. People with money are more likely to drive a car and therefore less likely to need transit.
Including 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.
Yep, the Vienna map only includes the U-Bahn, not the S-Bahn, even though some of the tracks of both U-Bahn and S-Bahn were built for the "Stadtbahn". (e.g. U4, U6, S45) But then the U2 used to be a tram line, so it's difficult to draw the line.
Same for Budapest - Metro only, but not the HÉV, which is the equivalent of Berlin's S-Bahn, more or less (suburban light rail), some of whose lines run entirely within the boundaries of the city proper.
a design issue: as I scrolled down the page, at half way I was confused if the city name was associated with the map on top of it or below it. of course I could have scrolled back to find out which was which, but it seemed a poor design if I had to do that.
It's not quite obvious what the point here is. Many of the cities listed (at least Amsterdam, Munich and Paris) have lightrail lines which can be used seamlessly from the subway. In the case of Amsterdam, the lightrail lines are what you'd actually use to move within the city.
On the larger scale, you get Paris' RER lines or Hamburg's S-Bahn and, for most European cities also a comprehensive train network that makes it possible to commute from larger cities that are as far away as 100km (e.g., from Maastricht, Den Haag or other Dutch cities to Amsterdam) - probably also for the (relatively large) Cologne/Düsseldorf area, which comprises as many people as Berlin, but has many local governments instead of one.
Not sure how to visualize this, though. (Ideally, you'd provide maps based on (i) actual scale, (ii) commute time, and (iii) commute cost.
Interesting, I always thought London had the biggest underground network. As far as I know Glasgow is missing.
Which city, do you think, has the best one? I've only been on the underground in London, Glasgow and Munich. And to me, London seems the best, you really don't need a car there (well at least in the centre).
Actually, i was quite unimpressed by the London metro last time i visited.
London is quite famous for its underground but due to it's age it seems to be extremely overcrowded. My experience on a weekend trip has been that the train did only stop every two stations because of so many people and it was just overcrowded.
On the other hand this made me realize how good the Berlin system actually is.
The other important thing to realise about London:
Use the buses. Really.
In most American cities, the bus network is just grim. In London, it's something everyone uses the whole time, so it has a budget, it's (relatively) clean, and it gets maintained. Very different deal.
London Underground trains always stop at every stop[1].
[1] actually not always, but with very rare exception.
{EDIT:
I'm getting downvoted so I think I misunderstood what you were saying.
On rereading again I now think you were saying "unusually due to overcrowding the trains were missing out every other station". Previously, I thought you meant "unusually due to overcrowding the trains stopped as frequently as every other station [whereas usually they visit fewer stations than that]".
I was trying to point out that stopping often is usual Underground behavior, thinking that you were assuming it wasn't.
Underground trains do (almost) always stop at every station on the line. I wonder whether the issue in this case was due to weekend closures - there are very often lines and stations which are closed at the weekend, either for maintenance or because they're mainly used by commuters.
Well, out of two days i've visited London i had the pleasure to walk one station (and because of the elevator being overrun by people, i took the stairs.. the thing i've learned was that the London underground can be quite deep in the ground, it felt like kilometers :P ).
Taking the stairs is a mistake you only make once :)
There's a very strongly worded sign at Covent Garden station, telling people that it really is faster to wait for a lift. But I often see tourists making their way up the stairs.
Haha, yes. I've seen such a sign ("Emergency stairs, don't use!") but well.. it was soo crowded and so many people took the stairs i thought it may be a good idea (at first) :)
Yeah the clockwork orange is missing, its a shame because it was one of the oldest, but its tiny compared to these ones. I would agree that London is one of the most comprehensive, its probably not as modern feeling (and clean) as some of the rest, but it is one of the best IMHO.
Madrid's metro has always been my favorite. Very extensive network, high density of stations, inexpensive (1€ per ride last time I was there), and most stations are pretty modern.
I'm surprised the pathetic Toronto TTC subway made its way to the list. For a city of its size it could really enjoy a more intricate subway system. There are buses and trams here indeed but they get stuck the traffic just like every other vehicle during the rush hour.
I do really wish it had more actual subway lines (and not dedicated streetcar lanes, etc.). But the Canadian municipal governments are neither powerful nor rich, unlike many of the other large cities listed, despite being a quite prosperous and growing city. A lot depends on the provincial government.
Also, it is incredibly lame that there is not a subway to the airport.
However, the maximum 5 min waiting time for a subway (and 2-3 min during rush hour) is very nice, and a huge contrast with, say, the Paris subway, where I think I waited 15 minutes for a subway once late at night. But really, with so few lines, you need that frequency for a 5 million person metropolitan area.
Toronto has a few additional forms of transport and many people do not even use the Subway on a daily basis thanks to those.
- Streetcars run all along downtown. Yup, they get stuck in traffic too but we have two streetcars running on dedicated lines now (St. Clair and Spadina), and they are pretty efficient.
- GO Trains connect the suburbs to the downtown core, and they are basically how anyone living outside of downtown Toronto get into the city if they are not using a car.
- Subways here run ever 5 minutes, unless there is a delay (Surprisingly rare), so the system is pretty efficient.
Despite all of this. I agree, the system is pretty weak, but after moving here my car's been sitting idle on my drive-way on a daily basis. I can easily get anywhere in the city, using my car only to leave the city. They are doing a lot to increase the subway line, but are also adding a lot more dedicated light rail lines.
That is in no means an opinion of what is better, just simply a statement as to how underfunded our transit systems are and how much we spend on health care overall, from a federal and provincial point of view.
Not sure what you mean. A simple look at Vancouver reveals a modern, plastic accepting, completely automated and growing network of under and above-ground trains. Oh, and that isn't owned by the government. Could that be the issue?
Point is that there are 3 extensions to that system I can name right now that should be put in place though prior to it being considered adequate to the region, never mind going beyond.
1. Extension to UBC
2. Evergreen Extension
3. Surrey Extension
If you look a Toronto, they're desperate for a complete conversion - New York style - to a subway/mass transit only system. There is so much they should be doing, but aren't.
I don't need the transit to be owned by government, but both Federal and Provincial levels should be regular contributors, like they are in every other nation.
What would be super awesome would be a globally complete and up-to-date and animated from inception. I dunno why that would make me so happy but it would.
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.