Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12
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 sucks (i agree that for trains it does kinda suck, though it still is good by US standards).
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.
|
I mean San Diego is one of the biggest cities in Southern California, but it doesn't make sense to extend LA's metro system all the way to it. It's not cost effective given the low density areas between SJ and SF that are unlikely to be up zoned any time soon. This is what commuter rail is for.
BART's untenable scope is is why it loses so much money and it's core services suffer for it.
Threaded Mode