Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo
I wasn't disputing that - that's obviously a fact (except maybe in Muni subways, that is). The point is cost/benefit analysis. Even if we leave out the $800 mil in "free" money from the Feds, is a subway with three/four total stops - and only one in Chinatown the best place to spend $600 mil? Is it better to upgrade service for X number of passengers by 50% or 4X number of passengers by 30%?
If we had loads of money to throw around, I'd say build subways everywhere, but we don't. The Transbay Transit Center is worth the money, IMO, because it improves access to and from the City by such a huge amount. But building the Central Subway sets work on other corridors within the City back not years, but decades. Do you seriously think we gain/keep more riders from their cars by improving one corridor by a lot instead of lots of corridors by a good bit?
Some more info:
http://www.examiner.com/a-833889~One...nly_lanes.html |
Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?
The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.
BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).
Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?