Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad
the point is, it would indeed be surprising if an underground option had indeed been ruled out: i.e., why would they have included it in the things you could vote on in that case?
the survey included basic cost-benefit analyses of various options mostly *to* the Fisherman's Wharf area, and some options were subway, some combos, and some mostly surface, as I recall.
the screenshot I posted was talking about any potential segment *from* FW to the west. I believe the way I responded after looking at all the analysis provided was that underground *to* FW made sense, but surface perhaps from the top of Van Ness to the west, if that segment were pursued.
|
I suspect a station at Washington Square would be underground but be the last such on the line. Obviously nothing has been "ruled out". Nothing has even been formally planned. But my prediction, based on what I've seen in SF over the years, is that the line would come above ground beyond Washington Square. It's a cost thing. I mean if we were building more subways, Van Ness and Geary east of Japantown would be the next most obvious places but instead we are getting BRT (not even above ground rail).