SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA: Transit/Transportation News

[rawocd]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

IMO, you cannot compare BART with any other post WWII new steel rail transit system in the US besides Washington DC, which as a single large city servicing steel rail transit system is superior.

BART, frankly, as is, is superior to the systems in Portland, Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Houston, Atlanta, St. Louis, San Jose, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Baltimore, and Cleveland. BART has to be compared with it's peers, rather than be compared with systems built in segments that often have street running with poorly designed transfer points.

Instead, BART needs to be compared to it's post WWII equals. In North America. IMO, this would be confined to systems in Mexico City, Toronto, Montreal, and, Washington DC.

When BART is compared to practically any of 36 or 37 steel wheel systems in East Asia it truly comes up short in 2013. However, as was my point, if BART were compared to the 9 to 10 comparable systems in East Asia in 1972 it would have been a standout.

To regain world class BART status needs to replace much of it's rail fleet, or at least, do a down to the body rebuild replacing the electronics and strengthening the railcars, replace the computer system, seek workable solutions to increase through tunnel ridership, work with unions to lower per train costs, and, complete Bayside extensions to San Jose.

No, I live in a city with a system that has been being built for more than 15 years and when completed the system will be nowhere near as capable as BART, but like I said, that is not my intent.

You didn't answer my question. I'm just asking about the basis for your knowledge of BART. Do you have personal knowledge of the system?

You're right that BART shouldn't be compared to light rail systems, but I don't see why BART shouldn't be compared to MARTA, MetroMover or the never build Seattle BART style system proposed in the 1970s. Like the DC metro, they were all proposed as a region wide solution - in effect they were supposed to be BARTs equals. Unlike BART or DC metro, they have all had minimal expansion. Does their inferiority to BART make them incomparable? I'd argue no, it demonstrates what BART and DC Metro were able to accomplish when the political climate in the us stymied so much elsewhere.

I'm also confused as to your addition of Montreal and to a lesser extent Mexico City to the comparison. You say that BART can only be compared against steel heavy rail systems. Yet Montreal metro and much of Mexico City metro are both rubber tired metros. Does that make the incomparable? If our metric is steel heavy rail(I'm not in favor of this metric, but for the sake of the point I'll assume its valid), then we would have to exclude all non steel rail heavy rail systems.

[Eightball]

DC, BART and MARTA are all comparable. All built around the same time, and similar design. That said:

1) DC is obviously the best, but it desperately needs more frequencies, expansion in the core and more TOD/better station utilization, especially in PGC. (950k unlinked trips per day

2) BART is very strong, but the major drawback is that it not all over extremely dense SF. It needs SF lines asap and then could truly be great. (401.8k unlinked trips per day)

3) MARTA is a nice and relatively complete system. It's hampered by Atlanta's strong lack of density, needs TOD (which is starting to happen) and needs more frequencies, political support and less car infrastructure. Could be an amazing transit system. Is decent at present. (227k unlinked)

And yes, I have extensive experience with all three systems (and cities). http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf
and cite for Atlanta being the least dense major metro http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/a...t/urban-sprawl
(please don't attack me ATLers. I got love for ya'll and your city)

Metropolitan Atlanta is the least densely populated metropolitan area in the United States, with only 1,370 persons per square mile, compared with 5,400 persons per square mile in Los Angeles.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by rawocd

You didn't answer my question. I'm just asking about the basis for your knowledge of BART. Do you have personal knowledge of the system?

You're right that BART shouldn't be compared to light rail systems, but I don't see why BART shouldn't be compared to MARTA, MetroMover or the never build Seattle BART style system proposed in the 1970s. Like the DC metro, they were all proposed as a region wide solution - in effect they were supposed to be BARTs equals. Unlike BART or DC metro, they have all had minimal expansion. Does their inferiority to BART make them incomparable? I'd argue no, it demonstrates what BART and DC Metro were able to accomplish when the political climate in the us stymied so much elsewhere.

I'm also confused as to your addition of Montreal and to a lesser extent Mexico City to the comparison. You say that BART can only be compared against steel heavy rail systems. Yet Montreal metro and much of Mexico City metro are both rubber tired metros. Does that make the incomparable? If our metric is steel heavy rail(I'm not in favor of this metric, but for the sake of the point I'll assume its valid), then we would have to exclude all non steel rail heavy rail systems.

A) Metro went further to build a unified system, and, more of it was built per unified specs (not that which was dreamed, but, that which was built).

B) When I was young, I went to SF just to ride BART (and the cable cars) I was genuinely amazed, particularly in view of having repeatedly ridden the NYC subway system which was a dump in the 1970s and '80s. BART into the 80s represented the same hope to me, that the LA highway system struck my father in the late 1950s. Leading edge proof that CA lead the most advanced country on earth.

C) It does not matter whether a mass transit uses linear induction with rubber or steel wheels, rubber wheels with catenary or 3rd rail power, or steel wheeled. If such vehicles can be switched the same way, they behave identically: all have X, Y, and T switching. Looked at from a routing consideration they are all equivalent. This applies to light rail, street cars, commuter lines, and, HSR. Functionally, all are identical.

Monorails are fundamentally different due to how they are switched. All switching are Y s, with the variable being the number of arms on the Y.

D) And, you are right about the political angle, sir. This political side involves interacting with unions, state departments of transportation, city governments and related NIMBYs as well as real estate developers, county governments, and, where the federal government is vis-à-vis agencies, existing law and regulation, lobbyists, and, donated money. The question, all along, has not been that we can't do something. Even today anyone saying we don't the capacity to almost anything is full of manure. The question, instead, is the increasing disconnect between what large numbers of people can use and what the few and powerful want.

EDIT: and I read everything I can get. I have a pretty good hardback library, too. On the internet, various California sites have extremely good commentary. For example, various comments surrounding the new SF downtown Station for HSR are exceptional. The period between 2008 and 2010 produced incredibly informative comments to HSR related forums. Go back on related websites and read everything. Go to Wikipedia under BART and chase down the references (if you have an active student ID you should be able to check out photocopies of many of the articles.) Check out Japan Railroad sites, and, look at the few papers that are translated into English. Go to every BART station and check the surrounding 500 meters. Use every tool you can think of: newspaper archives (electronic or physical). City Council Meeting summaries (harder to poke through). Cozy up to BART and see if you can get a tour of the maintenance shops- if you do interview from the perspective of "how hard a job you have." Read back related blogs in both skyscraperpage and skyscrapercity. Follow their debates. Use google.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Eightball

2) BART is very strong, but the major drawback is that it not all over extremely dense SF. It needs SF lines asap and then could truly be great. (401.8k unlinked trips per day)

I don't agree that BART should be expanded to better cover SF. BART is made to be a long distance suburban service which is demonstrated by its huge trains which are both wide and very long (10 car consists are the longest rapid transit trains in NA). This is because of the need to consolidate as much ridership as possible from the branches into the core/trunk route where the frequency on individual branches is limited, and it isn't as costly to have very long platforms since the majority of the service is at grade. But having long platforms for underground stations is very expensive and it's better to meet ridership demands by increasing frequency.

I would compare BART to Copenhagen S-tog which is also a long distance suburban system. When the city wanted to better serve the inner areas it built the Copenhagen Metro which has small, high frequency automated trains (similar to Vancouver Skytrain). The platforms are about 50m and the frequency is as little as 2 min (30 tphpd). SF proper would be better served by either something like this, or by creating more grade-separated routes for Muni. Perhaps Muni could include both type of lines in its network (automated light metro and LRT)

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

This is because of the need to consolidate as much ridership as possible from the branches into the core/trunk route where the frequency on individual branches is limited, and it isn't as costly to have very long platforms since the majority of the service is at grade.

This is true in theory, but take a look at most recent/upcoming BART expansions. We built subway stations in San Mateo County suburban areas where there was literally nothing on the surface (San Bruno) and where the only thing on the surface is a Costco parking lot (South SF). The SJ expansion has several more insanely expensive underground stations in areas of low density (with intense upzoning that might warrant an advance subway station not a remotely realistic option politically).

If BART ever were to extend down the peninsula, up to Marin, or additional distance in the South Bay, you can be guaranteed that we're talking about underground lines and stations. I can't really think of any potential expansion that might happen above ground, aside from some freeway-running out to Livermore before diving underground at the actual city limits.

People don't want to look at a train if they don't have to, and the contractors building BART are more than happy to spend an extra billion to bury a station. It doesn't help that BART's wheel-squealing problem is a real issue, and significantly louder than any other train that I've been near.

[Gordo]

I can agree that it would make a lot more sense to build a local line with shorter automated trains for use intra-city in SF.

Funding would be difficult though, since that would likely have to be funded entirely by SF. The ideal would be for this new system to be a part of the BART brand/tax district, but built to different specs.

[Nouvellecosse]

People don't want to look at a train if they don't have to? I've always found them fascinating to watch.

[Gordo]

Me too, but I think it's pretty clear that we're in the minority

[electricron]

Most people like looking at trains, but not while they are waiting at grade crossings behind a gate with flashing lights and ringing bells. That is a significant difference between the circumstances.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Gordo

This is true in theory, but take a look at most recent/upcoming BART expansions. We built subway stations in San Mateo County suburban areas where there was literally nothing on the surface (San Bruno) and where the only thing on the surface is a Costco parking lot (South SF). The SJ expansion has several more insanely expensive underground stations in areas of low density (with intense upzoning that might warrant an advance subway station not a remotely realistic option politically).

If BART ever were to extend down the peninsula, up to Marin, or additional distance in the South Bay, you can be guaranteed that we're talking about underground lines and stations. I can't really think of any potential expansion that might happen above ground, aside from some freeway-running out to Livermore before diving underground at the actual city limits.

People don't want to look at a train if they don't have to, and the contractors building BART are more than happy to spend an extra billion to bury a station. It doesn't help that BART's wheel-squealing problem is a real issue, and significantly louder than any other train that I've been near.

Nice observations.

Now, if we could get power player to look beyond the money making potential resulting from elaborate stations, etc., and rank function just a tad higher.

IMO, stations should be simple and elevated in the absolutely refined model used in Japan, where the lobby, etc., is on ground level and the tracks above. Use metal roofs for station shelter. Keep the ambience down, and, the functionality high.

If possible put in a few 4 tracked stations for same direction passing. Use platform fencing and platform doors to keep the width of such stations down.

To reduce wheel squealing, put in as large a radii curves as possible. Put in more high speed switches which radically reduce sharp turn angles. In addition, study what the Japanese have done in reducing train sound levels, such as sound walls and earthen berms. In places with the appropriate natural slope (has to be able to be made to drain water easily), semi-bury lines (most of the noise obviously is produced by the bottom 1/3 of vehicle height and grass covered soil on angled slopes is one of the best sound absorbers that there is.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

People don't want to look at a train if they don't have to? I've always found them fascinating to watch.

I think you would lose the fascination if the trains were passing your house every 2 minutes, especially with all the noise.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I don't agree that BART should be expanded to better cover SF. BART is made to be a long distance suburban service which is demonstrated by its huge trains which are both wide and very long (10 car consists are the longest rapid transit trains in NA).

Your characterization here is only partly true, and thus not reasonable grounds to reject a Geary line out of hand. BART is made to be a long-distance suburban carrier and an urban metro in region's core. At the farthest-flung ends, BART runs like a souped-up commuter railroad--park and ride garages, longer headways (because outer stations are not interlined), etc. That said, it's still third-rail service without a single at-grade crossing, and where stations have interlined service--especially in the region's urban core--BART allows easy transfers to other lines and has much more frequent headways allowing for 'turn up and go' service like any other metro. The roughly 6 mile Geary corridor could easily add 60,000 trips a day on the metro side of that equation--10k trips per square mile!--and since BART derives a huge amount of its revenue from fare recovery, six miles of subway can definitely pencil out quicker than a 20 mile mixed surface, elevated and subway extension to lower-ridership suburbs.

This is because of the need to consolidate as much ridership as possible from the branches into the core/trunk route where the frequency on individual branches is limited, and it isn't as costly to have very long platforms since the majority of the service is at grade. But having long platforms for underground stations is very expensive and it's better to meet ridership demands by increasing frequency.

All BART platforms are constructed to accommodate 10-car trains, because even at the edges, 10-car trains are common. Also, I'd again like to address the popular misconception among forumers on how much BART travels at grade. According to BART's website, the system has "37 miles of track through subways and tunnels, 23 miles of aerial track and 44 of surface track." There are 16 surface stations, 15 subway stations, and 13 elevated stations. The majority of trackage and stations are definitely not at grade.

[rawocd]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

To reduce wheel squealing, put in as large a radii curves as possible. Put in more high speed switches which radically reduce sharp turn angles. In addition, study what the Japanese have done in reducing train sound levels, such as sound walls and earthen berms. In places with the appropriate natural slope (has to be able to be made to drain water easily), semi-bury lines (most of the noise obviously is produced by the bottom 1/3 of vehicle height and grass covered soil on angled slopes is one of the best sound absorbers that there is.

Actually, the squealing is because BART trains don't have differentials on them. This causes the wheels to slip, hammering the track on turns, making the problem worse.

The new cars will have differentials, which will fix this, and presumably once the track is smoothed again, will drastically reduce the noise.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fflint

Your characterization here is only partly true, and thus not reasonable grounds to reject a Geary line out of hand. BART is made to be a long-distance suburban carrier and an urban metro in region's core. At the farthest-flung ends, BART runs like a souped-up commuter railroad--park and ride garages, longer headways (because outer stations are not interlined), etc. That said, it's still third-rail service without a single at-grade crossing, and where stations have interlined service--especially in the region's urban core--BART allows easy transfers to other lines and has much more frequent headways allowing for 'turn up and go' service like any other metro. The roughly 6 mile Geary corridor could easily add 60,000 trips a day on the metro side of that equation--10k trips per square mile!--and since BART derives a huge amount of its revenue from fare recovery, six miles of subway can definitely pencil out quicker than a 20 mile mixed surface, elevated and subway extension to lower-ridership suburbs.

I'm afraid I still must disagree. The system was clearly designed primarily with the intention to travel long distances across the Bay and to outer areas with the urban section being the exception rather than the rule. Contrast that with a system like the Montreal metro which may stretch briefly into some suburban areas like Laval but is predominantly an urban system. If Montreal were going to design a new line with the sole intent being to service a low density suburban area, a metro line would be a poor choice, and so too is the case of a conventional BART line intended to solely service a dense urban area.

Originally Posted by fflint

All BART platforms are constructed to accommodate 10-car trains, because even at the edges, 10-car trains are common. Also, I'd again like to address the popular misconception among forumers on how much BART travels at grade. According to BART's website, the system has "37 miles of track through subways and tunnels, 23 miles of aerial track and 44 of surface track." There are 16 surface stations, 15 subway stations, and 13 elevated stations. The majority of trackage and stations are definitely not at grade.

This doesn't change that fact that by far the largest proportion of the system is at grade (42% vs 36% and 22% respectively) and that the vast majority of it is not underground. And because most of the system is not underground it is cheaper to have very long platforms and long trains to handle the ridership rather than to invest in more central tunnels to handle greater frequency with shorter trains. To again contrast that with the Montreal Metro, each of its two busiest lines (orange and green) has its own tunnel through the center of town rather than trying to save money by converging into a single route since it would have been more expensive to have higher capacity trains (whether wider, longer, or both) running at a lower frequency since all of the system is underground and it would have substantially increased the cost of the stations and/or tunnels across their entire routes. After all, 3.2m wide 216m long trains are practically unheard of for urban metro trains even world wide.

Most systems have to make a compromise of one sort or another and that's fine. If a route is 25km with 20 km urban and 5km suburban, then it makes sense to design it with urban characteristics since you're gaining more through the efficiency of the urban section than you're losing through inefficiency in the suburban section. But if you're designing a whole new route, you don't design it in an inefficient manner just so it agrees with other routes in the system.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

IMO, you cannot compare BART with any other post WWII new steel rail transit system in the US besides Washington DC, which as a single large city servicing steel rail transit system is superior.

BART, frankly, as is, is superior to the systems in Portland, Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Houston, Atlanta, St. Louis, San Jose, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Baltimore, and Cleveland. BART has to be compared with it's peers, rather than be compared with systems built in segments that often have street running with poorly designed transfer points.

You most certainly can compare BART & the DC Metro with MARTA, they are all extremely similar. MARTA is just much smaller, with 48 miles of track.

MARTA is heavy rail, totally grade separated and there are no poorly designed transfer points. It also reaches speeds of 70+ mph on certain segments, so it's fast. You can go across town rapidly, and the Gold/Red lines end inside the Airport terminal. We have one of the best and fastest Airport/City rail connections I've seen.

[ardecila]

^ I agree... it's a shame that MARTA is virtually irrelevant to most Atlanta residents because of poor land-use decisions regionally and a failure to expand the system into areas of growth.

However, getting back to the topic, I don't really understand why a Geary line wouldn't be welcome. Fremont and Dublin/Pleasanton trains end at Daly City because there's a pocket track there, but stations from 16th/Mission to Daly City don't really need that level of service, it seems. A Geary line would allow BART to better use capacity under Market Street and free up Muni to focus on feeder and crosstown service. It's pretty clear now that BART will never extend down the Peninsula so why not do something different with the western end of the system?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm afraid I still must disagree. The system was clearly designed primarily with the intention to travel long distances across the Bay and to outer areas with the urban section being the exception rather than the rule....a poor choice, and so too is the case of a conventional BART line intended to solely service a dense urban area.

It cannot be true that we must reject Geary BART because it goes against the system's intended design: BART's designers, from the very start, intended a line down Geary.

BART was initially intended to funnel suburbanites into the central cities of Oakland and San Francisco, but what happens when they arrive? Oakland has amazing coverage, as intended; but San Francisco needs much better coverage, as originally intended, and Geary was and remains the best candidate. Not that it will necessarily happen, but if there is to be a new transbay tube it should connect to tunnels under Geary.

This doesn't change that fact that by far the largest proportion of the system is at grade (42% vs 36% and 22% respectively) and that the vast majority of it is not underground. And because most of the system is not underground it is cheaper to have very long platforms and long trains to handle the ridership rather than to invest in more central tunnels to handle greater frequency with shorter trains.

BART has 16 surface stations, 15 subway stations, and 13 elevated stations--if you are simply assuming routes running primarily or partially on surface tracks must also then have surface platforms, that is not necessarily true.

Or perhaps you're just concerned with what is "cheaper." Maybe it is cheaper to build a 20 mile (mostly) surface route into the exurbs rather than a 6 mile urban subway, maybe not. But initial buildout is not even half of the financial situation.

BART's operating expenses are covered primarly by farebox recovery--68.2% in FY 2012 and a projected 71% for FY 2013. A 6-mile line drawing 60,000 daily trips would bring in six times as much revenue as a 20-mile line drawing only 10,000 daily trips, and could thus not only pay for itself but also subsidize less-used suburban extensions. The 20-mile suburban line alone wouldn't do either. Also, an extension to Livermore or some other far-flung suburb would require construction and operation of additional infrastructure like huge parking garages for those 5,000 cars--garages which never pay for themselves.

Alas, "cheap" probably isn't the best metric for choosing where to extend the system in any case. Expanding coverage within San Francisco, as originally intended, is certainly a worthier approach.

Most systems have to make a compromise of one sort or another and that's fine. If a route is 25km with 20 km urban and 5km suburban, then it makes sense to design it with urban characteristics since you're gaining more through the efficiency of the urban section than you're losing through inefficiency in the suburban section. But if you're designing a whole new route, you don't design it in an inefficient manner just so it agrees with other routes in the system

I don't understand this idea, that there is any part of the system that can forgo 10-car platforms. Every single station sees 10-car trains during commute hours, at a minimum, even the far-flung ones. And it would be ludicriously inefficient to shorten the platforms on a Geary subway specifically, considering how busy the line would be not only during rush hours but all day long. Capacity is everything.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

However, getting back to the topic, I don't really understand why a Geary line wouldn't be welcome. Fremont and Dublin/Pleasanton trains end at Daly City because there's a pocket track there, but stations from 16th/Mission to Daly City don't really need that level of service, it seems. A Geary line would allow BART to better use capacity under Market Street and free up Muni to focus on feeder and crosstown service. It's pretty clear now that BART will never extend down the Peninsula so why not do something different with the western end of the system?

I can see a Geary line done multiple different ways, some using BART and some not, however I'm not really following your statement here?

24th/Mission and Balboa Park are the 5th and 6th busiest stations in the system (after the four Market St stations), with Daly City usually 8th or 9th. They perhaps don't need the same level of service as the Market St stations, but I think it would be a mistake to remove service. Besides, any Geary extension would NOT merge into the current Market St tunnel. That would be an operational nightmare that would undoubtedly lower capacity through the tube.

Ridership by station can be found here: http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fflint

It cannot be true that we must reject Geary BART because it goes against the system's intended design: BART's designers, from the very start, intended a line down Geary.

No, you should reject it because there's a more appropriate way to serve such a route. An inner SF urban route should have shorter and likely narrower trains that run much more frequently than any existing individual BART route. In fact, the frequency of that one route should be as high as in the section of BART where all 4 Transbay routes are combined.

Originally Posted by fflint

BART was initially intended to funnel suburbanites into the central cities of Oakland and San Francisco, but what happens when they arrive? Oakland has amazing coverage, as intended; but San Francisco needs much better coverage, as originally intended, and Geary was and remains the best candidate. Not that it will necessarily happen, but if there is to be a new transbay tube it should connect to tunnels under Geary.


BART has 16 surface stations, 15 subway stations, and 13 elevated stations--if you are simply assuming routes running primarily or partially on surface tracks must also then have surface platforms, that is not necessarily true.

Or perhaps you're just concerned with what is "cheaper." Maybe it is cheaper to build a 20 mile (mostly) surface route into the exurbs rather than a 6 mile urban subway, maybe not. But initial buildout is not even half of the financial situation.

BART's operating expenses are covered primarly by farebox recovery--68.2% in FY 2012 and a projected 71% for FY 2013. A 6-mile line drawing 60,000 daily trips would bring in six times as much revenue as a 20-mile line drawing only 10,000 daily trips, and could thus not only pay for itself but also subsidize less-used suburban extensions. The 20-mile suburban line alone wouldn't do either. Also, an extension to Livermore or some other far-flung suburb would require construction and operation of additional infrastructure like huge parking garages for those 5,000 cars--garages which never pay for themselves.

Alas, "cheap" probably isn't the best metric for choosing where to extend the system in any case. Expanding coverage within San Francisco, as originally intended, is certainly a worthier approach.

No one is saying that SF doesn't need an urban rapid transit line, just that the technology should not be the same as the suburban routes. We may have gotten our wires crossed if you thought I was suggesting that urban SF is not worthy of additional rapid transit service or that the region should be placing suburban extensions at a higher priority.

Originally Posted by fflint

I don't understand this idea, that there is any part of the system that can forgo 10-car platforms. Every single station sees 10-car trains during commute hours, at a minimum, even the far-flung ones. And it would be ludicriously inefficient to shorten the platforms on a Geary subway specifically, considering how busy the line would be not only during rush hours but all day long. Capacity is everything.

Considering that every subway line in NYC, Paris, London, DC, Toronto, Boston, etc. make due without 200m platforms, I'm pretty sure a rapid transit line serving SF can as well. The Montreal metro has 152m platforms and 2.5m wide trains (narrow enough to fit both tracks in a single bored tunnel). And the metro is capable of carrying over 30,000 pphpd. The only reason that BART needs such long trains is that as a commuter/metro hybrid system, each individual route has limited frequency due to having to share the central common corridor. If the common interlined corridor can have a train every 2.5 minutes or 24 trains per hour, then each of the 4 branches can have 1/4 of that, or one train every 10 mintes. That frequency is very low for a metro system and therefore longer trains are required to meet demand. Conversely, An urban line that operates on its own using its own rolling stock would not have such limited frequency and would not need such long trains or platforms. Especially since trains intended for shorter distance urban transport can be built with fewer seats and more standing room.

I'm sure the new line would need platforms longer than in the 50m used by Copenhagen metro, but 200m with 3.2m wide trains would just be over kill.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

No, you should reject it because there's a more appropriate way to serve such a route.

The impossible is never more "appropriate" than the possible.

You, like Wizened Variations, are merely spouting one-size-fits-all theoreticals from afar. Tell me, just which magical transit entity will suddenly reveal itself and construct and operate this more "appropriate" theoretical metro?

There is zero chance Muni will build heavy rail metro on Geary. Zero. It cannot even build LRT or true BRT on the corridor. About 20 years ago the MTA proposed median-running LRT for the Geary corridor, and thanks to NIMBYs it went nowhere until about a decade later, when that plan was downgraded to median-running BRT. But this being San Francisco, a couple years ago the BRT plan was downgraded to only partially-separated BRT-lite to appease the same NIMBYs. And it will take years and years before they finally decide that can't be done, either. We're stuck with buses running in mixed traffic. That's Muni.

There is also zero chance Caltrain--which is a true commuter railroad--will build heavy rail metro on Geary. Caltrain doesn't have a dedicated source of revenue for its current operation, let alone for constructing and operating an underground metro under Geary.

Geary BART is by no means certain, and despite being the subject of recent conversation among planners, even likely at this time. But I'm not going to reject the possible simply because the impossible is deemed academically more "appropriate" by someone so distant in more ways than one.