Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Really? I think this is where it's weakest.
|
Except it's undoubtedly where it's the strongest, overall. SF city-proper has some of the most impressive transit coverage of any American city, and Oakland is no slouch either, though it's not in the same league as SF.
Though if you never ride the bus, and only consider trains to be "proper" public transit, i could see how you might come to the conclusion that coverage in the core — (i agree that for
trains it does kinda —, though it still is good by US standards).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.
I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.
(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)
|
Yeah, there should be more BART/Muni metro coverage in the core. Geary needs a subway yesterday, as does Van Ness and maybe 19th ave.
But dude...San Jose is one of the three major cities in the Bay Area, and BART is going to be serving the densest part of the city. BART to SJ is a good thing, and I'm not sure why you're throwing SJ into the same bucket as the suburbs.
Threaded Mode