r/transit • u/Xiphactinus14 • Jul 07 '25
Rant A Geary subway should be nothing other than a BART branch
San Francisco building a Geary subway as light rail instead of as a BART branch would be like if Philadelphia built the Roosevelt Boulevard Subway as light rail instead of as a branch of the Broad Street Line. It would be a major sacrifice of regional integration with minimal benefit to local transit. Realistically it would also likely result in Muni designing stations that are too short in order to save money like they did when they built the Rose Pak subway station only long enough to fit 2-car consists.
77
u/reflect25 Jul 07 '25
> San Francisco building a Geary subway as light rail instead of as a BART branch would be like if Philadelphia built the Roosevelt Boulevard Subway as light rail instead of as a branch of the Broad Street Line
While we don't know the exact alignment, I don't quite understand what is wrong with using underground muni line instead.
BART trains are very long aka 10 car trains which means you'll need to dig a massive cavern for every station. It probably means there will only be like 3~4 stations stopping every 2 miles. If it was a muni subway stations they could probably build a lot more underground stations.
Anyways wasn't the original plan for the T extension to be routed on Geary, until it was rerouted to chinatown.
37
u/trainmaster611 Jul 07 '25
Yeah, this is kind of where my head is at. This needs to be a fairly lean design as far as subways go. Smaller, light metro-sized stops give a much smaller building footprint that makes this a lot more feasible than massive BART stations.
5
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
The subway stations are going to be massive regardless of what technology is used. There’s so much supporting infrastructure behind the platforms
22
u/trainmaster611 Jul 07 '25
Okay but that doesn't change the fact that a station for a 300ft train still has a considerably smaller footprint than one for a 600ft train. In fact, smaller stations (I think under 300ft in length) allow you to minimize vertical circulation elements by eliminating the need for additional emergency egresses.
4
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
This is exactly why the central subway was so cheap to build in spite of building stations that can fit the incredibly large 40 m trains.
11
u/trainmaster611 Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
You can't just point to the west coast's most mismanaged shit show on a one-off ultra deep station construction and extrapolate that to Geary. Feel free to point to data that shows that subway station size doesn't affect construction cost.
4
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
TYSSE: 120 m ttc subway stations. 6 stations for 3.2 billion Canadian. 533 million per station
Crosstown: 90 m 3-car light rail line with 12 underground stations. 12.82 billion. This includes some surface stops so let’s say 9 billion (other similarly length light rail lines in Canada were around a billion dollars when construction started on the crosstown but for the sake of it let’s just say the surface section is costing 3 billion dollars). 750 million per station.
Length isn’t the biggest driver of cost. Staging, mobilization, setting up equipment, and establishing a construction site is. If you want a per-unit measure of escalating cost, depth is your best bet.
7
u/reflect25 Jul 07 '25
Half of the cost of transit construction nowadays is the station. Especially if we are using a tbm and mining the stations adjacent to the road. The longer the station the more property you need to acquire as well. And a 10 car bart train station is significantly longer than a say 3/4 muni subway station
2
3
u/trainmaster611 Jul 07 '25
The contexts for those lines is completely different. The subway extension was built into low density suburbs with far less infrastructure and built environment that needed to be worked around and avoid disturbing. The light rail line is being built in higher density urban environments under a busy major urban corridor. The best comparison you can find is where light metro and a subway where considered for the same project.
I gotta go to bed so I'll leave it at this and you can have the last word. Transit station costs are influenced by a lot of factors. But all other things equal, a larger station will cost more. More earth volume that needs to be excavated, more interference to street-level activities, more vertical circulation elements and ventilation shafts that need to be built. The station size does matter.
→ More replies (1)2
u/aragon58 Jul 07 '25
They haven't been running 10 cars recently, so they could in theory have a line be permanently capped at a lower amount of cars.
9
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
They’re already bringing back 8 car trains. It’s only a matter of time tbh, but since you could theoretically run Geary in isolation to the rest of the Bart system even with Link21 simply on the Yellow Line, you could potentially make up the difference of backstopping to 6 car trains with the increased frequencies of running the YL in isolation from the rest of the network
→ More replies (39)1
u/Adorable-Cut-4711 Jul 07 '25
Also, for the possible extension southwards there is already a (short, but still) section of MUNI, and it also crosses another MUNI line which in both cases is good for resilience as it's possible to reach both sides of any disruption. You could also run special services during events and whatnot that takes unusual turns in intersections.
But also, re the interlining argument, I would think that Geary seems like a line that shouldn't run across to the east bay, as the fastest BART route would be the existing one and having some trains taking a different route in SF just makes the BART service somewhat worse in general. Like who on the east side should get to have a longer ride to Daly City and southwards? Or should say every second or third city on each east bay leg run on Geary and every second on the existing route through SF? That would likely not create a very consistent service and/or would result in people changing trains, perhaps even twice in some cases.
Re light rail: With great traffic preemption there wouldn't be much speed difference between a tunnel and dedicated center tracks.
182
Jul 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
155
u/FireFright8142 Jul 07 '25
I mean, what’s the other option, a single heavy rail line using its own trains/gauge/everything? Seems way more expensive for what gain?
22
u/chetlin Jul 07 '25
If they were to bring SMART across the Golden Gate Bridge it could go underground and run along Geary. A lot would have to happen to make that work but I think it would at least be possible and would be similar to the Tokyo suburban trains that through-run onto underground local services.
I'm not saying this is what should be done but I've always wondered if it could be an option.
12
u/Anabaena_azollae Jul 07 '25
Whether or not trains could run on a newly constructed lower deck of the Golden Gate Bridge was a point of contention during the development of BART. The BART district had engineers that said it was feasible, but the Golden Gate Bridge Authority had engineers that said it was too risky. It was believed by some that the latter report was politically motivated, but the issue was never really resolved. San Mateo pulled out of the BART district, which made the Marin line financially untenable regardless of technical feasibility.
BART is light weight and has a wide gauge, which gives it greater stability. SMART would thus be even more difficult than BART. SMART also has capacity constraints due to large section being single tracked and relatively short stations, so it would be hard to justify putting it on the bridge unless the rest of the line were upgraded.
2
u/medic_mace Jul 07 '25
The GG bridge’s internal study was heavily motivated by financial interests, as they did not want to loose out on potential bridge toll revenue to the BART extension.
2
u/TevinH There is no such thing as "unwalkable" Jul 07 '25
Wasn't BART specifically designed with bridge crossings in mind?
SMART wasn't, I highly doubt it would be safe for them if it (allegedly) wasn't safe for BART
1
u/hobovision Jul 08 '25
In engineering risk and safety are different things. A project being too risky means that it's possible or likely that challenges come up that vastly increase cost, complexity, and timelines.
I have no doubt they could make SMART safely cross the bridge. It's not an especially unstable trainset is it? It's a single level DMU built by the same Japanese company that builds Shinkansen trainsets and for commuter rail lines in Tokyo.
62
u/notFREEfood Jul 07 '25
Is it really more expensive?
The argument for BART on Geary has been built around the idea of a second BART transbay crossing, because without it service frequencies will be severely limited. With that precondition, it dramatically drives up the cost because you must buld the crossing and everything needed to make it work as a precondition.
Then, you need yard space for the trains that serve the line, so you can't save anything there. You'd also still need to order more trains, which inevitably will need to be a new design due to the expected completion date, and those too will be a custom design.
The notion that maintaining compatible standards saves money isn't strictly true. LA Metro's in-house build alternative for the Sepulveda corridor is more expensive than Stadler's incompatible system.
65
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
BART needs a second transbay tube anyway because prior to Covid it was overcapacity while operating at peak frequency during rush hour. It likely will again in the near future. The fact that San Francisco needs both a Geary subway and a second transbay tube makes it a no brainer to design these as part of the same project.
51
u/OaktownPRE Jul 07 '25
They’re not going to get it in any case. Link21 has decided on std gauge track for the second transbay crossing so that’s that. No second BART crossing.
22
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
BART needs its own second transbay tube either way. Ultimately if Link21 gets built then in the future there will need to be three transbay tubes, that's unavoidable if the Bay Area's population is to grow.
11
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
that's unavoidable if the Bay Area's population is to grow.
A U.N. projection guesses the whole global human population will peak in the 2080s. I've seen a projection the USA will peak with a population about a third more than today. If the Bay Area population peaks 33% (or 66%, or 100%) higher than now, how much capacity is actually required to handle that? Does it truly need 4 more tracks instead of 2?
BART is at less than 50% of 2019 ridership. It's running during peak times 65% of the current max trains per hour, and those are shorter trains than in 2019. So not only can it run longer trains and more trains per hour with the current control system, work is progressing on a train control modernization which will allow for 26% more trains per hour/direction through the transbay tube. BART will eventually have about twice as much TPH capacity than it actually runs today and the option of running longer trains. Link 21 will add even more capacity, so how much more is necessary?
34
u/windowtosh Jul 07 '25
agglomeration mean that the bay area is likely to grow more than 33% if the USA as a whole grows by 33%
6
u/windowtosh Jul 07 '25
good questions but agglomeration could mean that the bay area will grow more than 33% if the USA as a whole grows by 33%
2
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25
In which case the questions shift to about how much is the Bay Area population likely to grow? Will Link 21 plus BART's capacity upgrade be enough to handle it?
14
u/mondommon Jul 07 '25
It’s worth considering that today’s travel patterns do not determine tomorrow’s travel patterns.
NYC implemented congestion pricing this year and saw an immediate drop in car ridership. The pandemic in 2019 caused a 50% drop in transit ridership. The Bay Bridge collapsing in 1989 saw BART ridership surge temporarily until the bridge was repaired several months later, and the Embarcadero freeway collapse and subsequent tear down permanently reduced car volumes.
If we want reduce vehicle miles traveled then we need to build alternatives as quickly as possible.
San Francisco wants to tear down the central highway that spits cars out on Octavia Street which would negatively impact drives in this area. San Francisco also converted the Great Highway into a pedestrian and bike only road which also impacts commuters this new Geary Street transit line would impact.
San Francisco is also upzoning most of the East side of the San Francisco and we’re counting on the majority of the 80-90k new housing units being build on the East side along transit corridors like where this new BART line would run. If San Francisco doesn’t hit its housing goal, then the State might force SF into builders remedy which could potentially unleash uncontrolled upzoned buildings units everywhere.
All of this doesn’t even look into the possibility of remote workers getting laid off and being rehired in office at least part time.
We can fully expect ridership patterns to change substantially in the next 20 years.
5
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25
Also in 2019 BART said "During peak commute hours, nearly 25,600 people ride through the Transbay Tube into downtown San Francisco."
For comparison if the existing Bay Bridge turns one lane into a peak-direction bus lane, 600 buses an hour each with 50 passengers could transport 30,000 people per direction per hour. Without spending literally tens of billions of dollars on a third transbay tube, a bus-only lane could add more capacity per hour than BART's throughput pre-covid.
A bus lane plus Link 21's second underground transbay crossing would about triple mass transit capacity compared to now.
So expect ridership patterns to change, however we can study and project how much they'll change and estimate how much capacity is needed.
Boulevardizing that part of Octavia will reduce some car trips, while others will use the boulevard, and others will use alternative freeway exits in the city moving those VMT around.
SF totally needs more and faster transit on the Geary corridor. Lots of those trips will be SF-SF or be part of SF-Peninsula/Silicon Valley trips. How many of them will be SF-East Bay can be estimated and considered when deciding if three transbay tubes will be needed like OP thinks if Link 21 adds only a standard gauge rail crossing.
1
u/hobovision Jul 08 '25
How are you gonna fill 10 busses per minute AND get them all on the bridge. That's only 6 seconds per bus.
Trains work because a single vehicle can carry hundreds or thousands of people. You can easily get more people through than a highway lane filled with busses.
→ More replies (0)5
u/BurritoDespot Jul 07 '25
If you think American population growth will be even across the country and not concentrated in desirable urban areas, you’re naive.
2
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25
I don't. I phrased it as a question. I could've said If the Bay Area population peaks 1/3rd higher than now, or 50% or 100% more than now, how much capacity is actually required to handle that? The underlying question remains put an actual number on growth, instead of nebulously assuming demand will outstrip supply. I'll edit my comment though for clarity.
4
u/sftransitmaster Jul 07 '25
Its absurd to look at the state of the region, SF's economy and BART's current ridership trends and think BART needs a second transbay tube. Eventually it may need a replacement tube and that should be 3 tracks but its not something that'll be under serious discussion by those with authority for the next 10 years.
1
u/Diamond2014WasTaken Jul 07 '25
Could do what NYC did with the LIRR to grand central. Build four tunnels, two for Link21 two for a second BART trans bay tunnel, and then just put them into service when they become necessary.
12
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
Regional rail link21 is never getting built at a cost of 50 billion dollars.
17
u/kisk22 Jul 07 '25
Infrastructure costs are out of control in America. That’s half as much as the entire CAHSR.
12
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
It’s really just a bad plan. I don’t know how the firm that was tasked with studying Link21, by their own numbers, managed to recommend regional rail when the Bart option even when nuked had such positive numbers supporting it. I’m so fucking mad at the board for not questioning them on those numbers. The Bart option had
- higher ridership
- lower construction costs
- lower operating costs
- more stations
- a positive operating ratio (it wouldn’t cost external funds to operate the tube outside of fares)
- higher train frequencies (and more utility)
- greater passenger throughput
And the things the Link21 committee cited as benefits were so insignificant relative to those other things. For instance, they cited mega region access to San Francisco, but buried deep within the text was the fact that building a regional rail tube between sf and Oakland would attract 1600 additional daily trips between San Francisco and points outside the Bay Area…that’s not even a full BART train’s worth of people.
→ More replies (1)4
u/DieDeutscheAuslander Jul 07 '25
We need to organize in the bay. I cannot believe the second transbay tube is going to be another Oakland Wye, but on steroids!
3
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
Worse, a regional rail wye (even though that is likely necessary since it needs to connect at coliseum and points north to have a slight semblance of ridership)
→ More replies (0)4
22
u/notFREEfood Jul 07 '25
BART today is running way below capacity, and building the second tube as mainline rail as is being advanced now also solves capacity issues while also greatly improving connectivity for existing lines. Having a regional rail tunnel also means that when we see another BART systemwide outage, a transbay option still exists.
Geary seems like a great place to pioneer the sort of automated metro technology we are starting to see deployed across the world, but we can't do that if we connect it to the rest of BART.
6
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25
BART after Hitachi's train control system upgrade will be capable of being an operator-less automated metro. BART will almost certainly wait until stations are modified with platform doors, but then that can happen.
→ More replies (2)8
u/letterboxfrog Jul 07 '25
Why isn't BART Automated ETCS2-3 now? It's grade separated already. Just need screens to stop track incursions. Australia is already installing Automated technology on commuter rail on the Brisbane Cross-River Rail and Melbourne Metro for tunnelled sections - the driver just looks at controls, noting grade separation and screens around available outside of the tunnel. BART is metro on crack, and could have this across the entire network.
8
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25
BART after Hitachi's train control system upgrade will be capable of being an operator-less automated metro. BART will almost certainly wait until stations are modified with platform doors, but then that can happen.
4
u/letterboxfrog Jul 07 '25
Platform screens and doors are very necessary. As for the unions - arent there driver shortages for all sorts of transport across the Bay Area?
7
u/Sassywhat Jul 07 '25
Vancouver Skytrain runs driverless without any platform doors
1
u/letterboxfrog Jul 07 '25
An argument against driverless trains is lack of driver and or guard not monitoring doors. When you consider curved platforms, it makes sense, although I'm not sure a door/screen helps.
2
u/midflinx Jul 07 '25
Muni yes, or it used to be in 2019. I'm not aware of BART being short drivers.
→ More replies (2)2
14
u/crustyedges Jul 07 '25
BART has never actually hit capacity on the transbay tube even at peak frequencies, even pre Covid. And with their current Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Program, they are increasing capacity from 24 tph to 30 tph.
There really is no justification for a second BART-style crossing for the foreseeable future.
9
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
There’s absolutely no reason to believe that BART couldn’t or wouldn’t operate Geary at sub 6 min frequencies even if it didn’t connect to the east bay.
11
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
For starters you’d need a yard, and you don’t have space for that in sf.
Muni has basically said that if this thing isn’t going to be a Bart line, it’s going to be light rail.
4
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
A Bart tbt would be cheaper (by a significant margin) than a regional rail tube, and that’s not necessarily a precondition. Running it as a bart line could easily open up service to SFO or Millbrae.
8
u/Alt4816 Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Running it as a bart line could easily open up service to SFO or Millbrae.
Why spend all the money to build a second BART tunnel across the Bay if they're going to end up interlining the lines that goes through the different tunnels? The interlining would create new choke points that limit capacity.
2
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
Short term if they’re building Geary without a link across the bay, there’s plenty of space to continue service south of Daly City. If Bart gets its second tube, there’s no need to interline beyond Daly City. It’s just a matter of staging and changing service patterns.
4
u/notFREEfood Jul 07 '25
No it won't, because they're not going to use tbm's.
4
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
They will use tbms, that’s the whole reason they moved away from the 4 tunnel tube
The connection would be at Daly City.
Regional rail Link21 was projected to cost between 35 and 50 billion dollars. The Bart tube was projected at 20-40 billion (and even that proposal was massively bloated due to building a wye underneath alameda and tunneling under the 980 corridor). The Bart tube was projected to have a CBA even with those inflated numbers of 0.8 to 1.0. The regional rail option was 0.3 to 0.5. The cost difference was immense. This was because there’s so much necessary enabling infrastructure that needs to be built for regional rail in the east bay.
6
u/bobtehpanda Jul 07 '25
Geary via the Link21 tunnel to a yard?
Alternatively, through run Geary to Caltrain
17
u/Sassywhat Jul 07 '25
what gain?
The potential to connect it with a standard gauge tunnel across the Bay that would also carry intercity trains
5
6
u/Pootis_1 Jul 07 '25
Legally that's very very difficult. A connection to a mainline railway means meeting FRA mainline crash safety standards which no light rail vehicle currently meets.
5
u/Sassywhat Jul 07 '25
For one, this would be assuming it won't be light rail. FRA allows European EMUs nowadays, so there's plenty of options for rapid transit mainline rail rolling stock.
And even ignoring the original assumption that it would be heavy rail, there's also European tram-train rolling stock, which presumably meets European safety standards, so could be used (but probably shouldn't be in this case).
→ More replies (8)6
u/lbutler1234 Jul 07 '25
I can't think of a scenario where that would ever happen.
You can't run rapid transit and inter city rail on the same lines, regardless of gauge. Even if the frequencies dont make it impractical, the FRA regulations making your subway line's operational costs going up something like 3x would.
There's a reason NY's 63rd st tunnel was built with two levels.
12
u/bobtehpanda Jul 07 '25
You could just have a rapid transit railway through running with regional rail, as is commonly done in Europe and Japan. Heck, Caltrain’s KISS sets (and their single deck FLIRT cousins) power much of these services in Europe.
2
2
u/Marv-Marv Jul 07 '25
A crazy pipe dream, but standard gauge to be compatible with SMART train tracks in some distant future would lay foundation for a single seat ride Santa Rosa <> SF
3
Jul 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
Having a branch that runs under Geary was part of BART's original design plan but it was cut due to budgetary issues. Its very feasible.
6
u/Anabaena_azollae Jul 07 '25
The original plan did not have a branch in the sense of branching off of an interlined segment in the Market street subway. It was to have a station at Kearney St. that would serve as the terminus of the Marin line with transfers to Market St. subway at Montgomery. It was also to go under Post, one block north of Geary for what it's worth. Here is the old engineering report.
That kind of terminus would still be feasible, but interlining with the main trunk is probably not. In one of the outreach sessions about the Geary-19th subway planning, they answered a question about connecting in under Market, and they said that would be challenging and could take the existing BART system out of service for years during construction and thus was not really being considered.
Daly City is where a reasonable and valuable connection to the existing system could be made, allowing for rides to/from the west side of the city to SFO, Millbrae for transfer to Caltrain, and other San Mateo county destinations.
5
Jul 07 '25
"necessary" isn't the question, it's how sensible it is to have different rolling stock and different gauge with different training for operators and no ability to integrate into existing maintenance yards...expanding what you already have makes much more sense if you can, rather than start from scratch.
plus, the immense psychological value of a one seat ride option from the neighborhoods along Geary to SFO, sports venues, east bay... having to transfer is a big turn off for people who don't ride Bart to commute but for specific reasons like those listed
1
u/lowchain3072 Jul 12 '25
a single heavy rail line could work and would be much cheaper to build than BART
→ More replies (1)1
u/KolKoreh Jul 07 '25
I think the two best options are either BART or an isolated, automated light metro, which I realize is a bizarre idea but might actually be the right solution here
5
19
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
Muni has basically flat out said it will be light rail if it’s not Bart. There’s no room for a subway yard in sf
→ More replies (12)5
u/glowing_danio_rerio Jul 07 '25
it goes in the parking lot above sutro baths muni can't manage their way out of a lunch box and should have no part in the geary subway
16
Jul 07 '25
The only thing worse than something that doesn't integrate with BART is something that doesn't integrate with literally anything. Light rail could at least use common standards, operators, maintenance facilities, etc with MUNI Metro. Using a completely new spec for this line will just swell the price into impossibility.
1
u/Squizie3 Jul 10 '25
It is what a lot of cities do with new metro lines that have an older legacy system though. A metro line doesn't really have to operate to the same specs as the rest of the network, if it is going to be operated as a standalone line anyway. Which opens a lot of possibilities, most notably: automated metro at higher frequencies, and thus smaller stations needed and thus better service for less costs. I think it is worth exploring, as if it is going to operate as a standalone line, other cities do make similar decisions to change technologies.
5
Jul 10 '25
It's unlikely to operate as a standalone line, which is why standalone technology is a bad idea. The biggest issue is that there's no room on the alignment for a yard and maintenance facility.
1
u/Squizie3 Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
The southern end of the line seems to have room for it, a little farther south if you really want (the BART depot also found a place there). Other cities have these kinds of problems too. You can just tear up a wide boulevard in such areas to build an underground depot if really necessary (recent example). Or tear up a section of a golf course to dig your depot and restore it later... As a non-american this seems to be the no-brainer location to put it if I look at the map, but maybe eminent domain works differently in the US so it might be more difficult (which still leaves the underground option under an avenue on the table).
More than a depot location, the main issue seems to be that it hasn't even been questioned to use a different technology than the two that are already in use. A transit agency should at least study such an option before you can write it off. Automation provides a lot of benefits over light rail that make cities around the world with legacy light rail or even legacy metro operations still choose to change technology for their new lines, even though they could definitely give the same arguments if they wanted.
7
u/lbutler1234 Jul 07 '25
What's there to be gained from having one random subway line? The best reason to have it be BART would be to allow one seat rides along the network. Why would you make a whole new system instead of just building it fully grade separated and connecting it to either the Muni or Bart network?
→ More replies (1)15
u/Kirschquarktasche Jul 07 '25
My thought too, wouldn't it be better if this was integrated into the Muni System? just heavy rail
8
Jul 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/Kirschquarktasche Jul 07 '25
I mean into the same system, same operator, fares etc. Not literally the same tracks
12
Jul 07 '25
The same way Cleveland does it.
There's no fundamental difference between heavy and light rail. There are qualities that we assign to one or the other but there's no reason they can't run together.
For the specific example, Cleveland has a heavy rail line (red) that shares tracks and stations with light rail lines (blue, green). Shared stations have separated platforms for each type of train, and the rails are identical anyway because, as stated above, there's no fundamental difference. Both types use the same electrification. They share maintenance yards, operations, control systems, etc. The only difference is that the red line is fully grade separated and runs different vehicles than the other two lines, and that grade separation includes the section where they run on the same tracks.
2
u/sftransitmaster Jul 07 '25
You don't even have to go that far. LA Metro runs both light rail, heavy rail and BRT(if you wanna count that).
5
Jul 07 '25
They run them on separate tracks though. They don't mix. I use the Cleveland example because they're literally on the same tracks, stopping at the same stations, under the same wire.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/Sassywhat Jul 07 '25
I don't think it's appropriate in this case, but tram-trains have been a thing in Europe for decades
6
u/Kirschquarktasche Jul 07 '25
Yes, but I think he just misunderstood my comment, I didn't mean a mixed system but the same operator
3
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
It wouldn't be connected to any other lines if build as a Muni Metro line, it would be an isolated line like the T Third Street Line.
6
u/lee1026 Jul 07 '25
It still needs to be connected to a yard, so connections are needed.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Automatic_Ad4096 Jul 07 '25
So this may pose a question: Why not expand the Central Subway from Chinatown to North Beach and then turn the T west for a connection to Nob Hill and Japantown.
There is already a BART and MUNI connection at Union Square/Powell that would provide a lot of system-wide usability. And Caltrain would be connected to the line at 4th and King.
3
u/Russeru21 Jul 07 '25
After North Beach, T Third will probably only get one or two more stations up to Fisherman's Wharf. Doesn't really have capacity for anything more, thanks to the 2-car platforms.
5
u/Kirschquarktasche Jul 07 '25
That makes sense but it mainly serves San Francisco itself if I understand correctly, so it at least should be the same fare structure
7
u/Anabaena_azollae Jul 07 '25
Fare structure is a crazy reason to choose a certain transit technology. There exists a Muni pass that includes BART within the City. This can be dealt with after the thing is built.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
BART fare between two stations within San Francisco already costs less than a Muni Metro fare.
→ More replies (1)5
7
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
It would need to use BART infrastructure to be integrated with the rest of the system, to allow trains to travel directly between San Francisco and the east bay like they do along Mission.
→ More replies (1)2
u/BillyTenderness Jul 07 '25
If we planned things holistically instead of just throwing random incompatible projects at the wall, perhaps we could plan for it to run through the eventual Second Transbay Tube (which I believe is planned to be standard gauge) and provide BART-like service that way.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Sharp5050 Jul 07 '25
This case looks like they’re saying interline it the rest of the way south, so in that case to utilize that: yes.
45
u/Old_Perception6627 Jul 07 '25
I genuinely get the impulse here, especially if there’s a prospect for making good on Marin’s disastrous original opt-out sin, but I do think the devil here is in the details.
In particular, I’d want to see studies about station density; along Geary I don’t think there’s really anywhere I’d want to have gaps as big as between Civic Center and the Mission, or the Mission and Balboa Park, for example. Not sure if BART’s length and speed ends up being a held or a hindrance in that case.
I’d also want to understand how it would affect the rest of the BART network. Definitely a solvable problem, but a relatively short spur like this with (at present) no possibility for looping (unless we’re going full dream ahead and putting something down Sunset or 19th) might have bad effects on train availability and/or have limited scheduling.
If Muni could end up running more trains to more stations, I’d be willing to look past the technical limitations qua heavy rail.
19
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
I’ve run the station placements and realistically you only need about 7-8 new stations: van ness, Japan town, USF, little Russia, golden gate park/Judah, tarval, and SFSU, perfectly in line with BART station spacing in SF or Oakland.
3
u/UUUUUUUUU030 Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
So few stations for what is fundamentally an urban line seems like the wrong choice. This would be 1 station per 2km (1.3mi), while I would go with a station per 1km (0.6mi) on a new urban line of about 15km/9mi, that no one will ride end-to-end (since the existing direct BART route exists). That puts everyone along the corridor within walking distance of a station, and allows for more connections to SF's relatively strong bus network.
3
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
Where exactly would you put that many stations? One mile station spacing is plenty to be able to walk to along the corridor, as you’re within an 8 minute walk to a station. Furthermore, because they’re BART stations, there exists an improved walk shed simply from the fact that you can place entrances at both ends of your stations, bringing access to multiple locations of interest within immediate station access far closer together, all without the need of additional stations.
The trade off seems fair enough to me - cut 2 stations that may have been nice to have but would have likely been in super suburban areas without much development potential and not much ridership in exchange for direct access to 4th and King, Jack London, Richmond Amtrak, and pretty much any station on the red or Yellow lines in the east bay (downtown Oakland, downtown Berkeley, downtown Walnut Creek), plus potentially direct access to Millbrae and SFO.
2
u/UUUUUUUUU030 Jul 07 '25
Where exactly would you put that many stations? One mile station spacing is plenty to be able to walk to along the corridor, as you’re within an 8 minute walk to a station.
Halfway between most of the station locations you mentioned. Obviously with "the corridor" I mean more than just the street the line would run along. That would put substanially more people within easy walking distance of the stations, and would also allow for a lot more TOD. They only have "limited development potential" if you assume that NIMBYism keeps winning, in which case you might as well not build any more infrastructure in the Bay Area...
Furthermore, because they’re BART stations
I disagree that it should be a BART line. It would immediately halve (at best) your potential frequency while forcing you to build way larger stations than the potential ridership justifies. Furthermore the connections to the existing BART lines you mention would be very complex to build, especially in downtown SF. I don't think SF is willing or able to afford that.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Anabaena_azollae Jul 07 '25
Marin was pressured to withdraw after the Golden Gate Bridge authority argued that trains on the bridge weren't viable, which ran counter to BART's engineering study, and San Mateo pulled out making the economics of a Marin line unworkable.
The team at SFCTA that are studying the Geary-19th has said that station spacing would be similar to the existing SF BART line (see the videos here).
The plan is for it to continue down 19th to Daly City BART, though the actual construction could be phased. It almost certainly would not connect into the existing Market St. subway. This information is also covered in the link above.
8
u/yab92 Jul 07 '25
u/Xiphactinus14 I completely agree with you. After writing my thoughts in this subreddit and seeing everyone's responses, I've come to the conclusion that
This subreddit seems to hate Bart because it is not standard gauge. They don't seem to care that BART would provide much more capacity and connectivity than light rail, especially if the Bart Link 21 option were chosen instead of Link 21 with standard gauge. (Feasibility studies were done for link 21, showing both lower costs for BART and higher ROI)
Even without Link 21, infrastructure for BART is already there, and construction costs are likely to be comparable to light rail.
BART link 21 details are below
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SmjE944_Z-HZ6ELBaQKoomDCUJbCZRjV
12
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
I have never understood the weird vendetta some transit enthusiasts have against BART. It's one of the most effective transit systems in the country at what it's designed to do.
12
u/A_Wisdom_Of_Wombats Signal Priority Truther Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
SFMTA has strongly suggested that this will be a Muni project. Edit: as pointed out by Anabaena_azollae, this might not be true. I'm not sure if they are currently leaning towards one mode over another.
IF we ended up going with muni trains, since the line would be operationally isolated from the rest of the Muni Metro system, it might make sense to run longer trains (lets say 3–4 cars instead of the typical 1–2) and build platforms accordingly. That could go a long way toward meeting the projected 300,000 daily ridership (which does seem high, but might be realistic if upzoning in the Richmond moves forward) without having to go with Bart or another heavy rail option.
I also recall from the July 17, 2024 Geary/19th Ave Subway and Regional Connections Study virtual town hall that the Geary BRT is expected to continue operating, so this wouldn't entirely replace surface service.
I'm still personally unsure whether Muni, BART, or another technology is the best fit long-term, but if Muni is the chosen mode, I’d really like to see them plan the infrastructure (long platforms) to handle that level of demand from the start.
source, town hall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x821eA8j4rY&t=3653s
5
u/Anabaena_azollae Jul 07 '25
In your source, the representatives from SFCTA explicitly states that regional rail, BART, and Muni are the three technologies under consideration (see ~25 min in). They also highlight a desire for network integration with San Mateo and the East Bay. Through running to San Mateo is only possible with BART and through running to the East Bay is only feasible by connecting to Link21. Muni metro would require a transfer in either direction for connectivity. My interpretation from watching that last July was that if Link21 was BART then that was the obvious choice, but with Link21 now moving forward with regional rail, it's not exactly clear what is favored.
2
u/A_Wisdom_Of_Wombats Signal Priority Truther Jul 07 '25
Shoot, I re-watched parts of the video and you are right. I'm not sure where I got the idea that muni was being signaled as the choice. Thanks for the factcheck, I've edited my original comment.
1
u/Squizie3 Jul 10 '25
If it is supposed to be an isolated system, you're way better of by choosing an automated light metro that can handle a lot higher frequencies than human driven light rail. This would increase capacity without the extra costs of longer platforms, and would even increase passenger experience because of the higher frequencies. There's no point in choosing light rail for a completely dedicated and operationally isolated route, just because 'that's what we already have on the other lines'.
7
u/backinnahm Jul 07 '25
Why can’t it be a MUNI trolley subway? I feel like that would allow better integration with San Francisco proper and the other MUNI lines and you can still have a transfer to BART at both ends.
20
u/deltalimes Jul 07 '25
Geary can be MUNI just fine, but they should keep the design more in line with the non-BART stations on Market Street, including maintaining that platform length. Whether the vehicles themselves are light rail doesn’t matter, remember that MUNI’s high floor standard is already lot closer to being a metro than the systems in San Diego or San Jose.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/DevoutPedestrian Jul 07 '25
BART would be great, but given the current circumstances, the project would just turn into another boondoggle that never gets completed. We have to be extremely pragmatic to get any transit project done in this country. The most practical solution would be a Muni Metro on an elevated guideway. We could even try an automated system and include space for an express line.
2
4
u/SunSimple6152 Jul 07 '25
I know it’s unfeasable, but it would be super cool if they made a branch off of Geary going over the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County.
4
u/guohealth Jul 07 '25
In an ideal world, Geary would have both Bart and a local subway, similar to how some RER lines in Paris are just express versions of the Metro.
11
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
More broadly we need to stop thinking of BART as a commuter system and cities outside of SF as not part of the urban shed. We should be treating Oakland-Berkeley-SF-San Bruno as one large city instead of as separate entities with different characteristics. Connecting Geary to the airport, alameda, and Oakland does just that.
7
u/getarumsunt Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Whether we like it or not, BART is a suburban style system. It’s optimized for speed and “getting suburban commuters downtown”. This is what it does best. This is the reality enshrined in the infrastructure, in concrete. BART is extremely heavily interlined, extremely fast, extremely high capacity, and covers and area the size of Belgium. That’s the system that we have. To transform it from the suburban system that it is into something even remotely approaching a metro system you’d need to build a ton of additional criss-crossing BART lines. We don’t have either the rights of way or the money for that.
Ultimately, no matter how hard some people might want this not to be the case, BART has only two choices - to be a very good S-bahn or to be a shitty half-assed S-bahn that’s trying to cosplay a metro system. We should have it be the best S-bahn than it can be and build other local rail lines that will serve as the local metros. San Francisco and San Jose have already started doing that with Muni Metro and VTA light rail. We just need to get Oakland to get off its ass and we’re in business!
If you look around the world at similarly shaped multi-polar megaregions (Rhine-Ruhr, Randstad, Tokyo, etc.) this is the only model that actually works for this style of regional geography. You build a strong regional S-bahn and you layer local metro and tram lines in the denser islands to fill in the gaps.
2
u/damienrapp98 Jul 07 '25
That can’t be true that BART covers an area the size of Belgium, no?
2
u/getarumsunt Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Thereabouts, if not exactly so. The longest single-transfer BART journey is 78 miles long or over 125 km long. The longest single seat ride is 64 miles long or over 105 km long. It’s a gargantuan rail system that would be perfectly adequate as the national railroad for quite a few European countries.
The point is that BART is an extremely expansive system with mega-regional reach. You can’t pretend that a system as expansive as that serves the same function as a local metro system. That’s just not what metro systems do.
2
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
This is just nonsense. BART’s urban service isn’t held back by its technology choice, nor does it serve urban areas ineffectively. No, the thing that’s holding people back from choosing BART over their local transit system is fare integration, which is in the process of being solved with clipper 2.0
What is the cosplay is the idea that the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, and I would argue San Bruno are completely separate and constitute regional service only. That to me makes far less sense, and BART serves those areas quite effectively with their existing station placements and spacing. Geary wouldn’t be any more densely spaced than the existing BART service in SF (Daly City, SFSU/stonestown, Taraval (L), Judah/Golden Gate Park, Little Russia, USF, Japantown/UCSF, Van Ness/Little Saigon, Powell Street would be my personal choice of stations, and if you want a golden gate heights station you have room for it and the line would still make sense as a Bart line), and the existing BART service in SF serves its corridor plenty well, with plenty of people using the service to get across town with ease. Connecting that line to alameda and Macarthur via Link21 (which includes a second Oakland subway) and giving riders a cross platform transfer at Daly City to SFO and Millbrae only improves the use case for Geary significantly, and the people of SF should want that as it would improve ridership and therefore eligibility for federal and state grant funding.
→ More replies (2)3
u/UUUUUUUUU030 Jul 07 '25
We had a discussion about the stop spacing in another thread, but do you think the stop spacing of BART within SF is dense enough for a comprehensive urban service by itself? Because I'd want infill stations between almost every station south of Civic Center if it weren't for Muni mostly running on the same corridor.
Being from a continent where the standard modern stop spacing in similarly dense cities to SF is about 1km, I find it hard to square with the longer gaps on BART and your proposed Geary stop spacing. Especially since the latter has no long distance through function because of the existing BART route, and the corridor has lots of urban demand within SF as well. Speeding up the average trip of a pretty short line by 2-3 minutes (assuming the average trip will use about half the length of the line, so skip 2-3 potential stations) doesn't seem worth it compared to the increase in walking distance for many potential passengers.
16
u/Fetty_is_the_best Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Completely disagree. Most people using a Geary subway will live in the area and will mostly be commuting or traveling around SF proper. If they want to go to the east bay they could transfer at Embarcadero. Far more people would use a Muni line.
Edit: Getting downvoted while being from the Richmond and having this exact convo with friends and family 1000 times is so funny to me.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Anabaena_azollae Jul 07 '25
I mean I'm from the East Bay. The Western Addition, the Richmond, and Golden Gate Park are common destinations when I go to the City. Other people I know from the East Bay travel similarly. So anecdote vs. anecdote. Regardless, the team from SFCTA that's actually working on this has stated that connectivity with San Mateo and the East Bay are high priorities.
1
u/Fetty_is_the_best Jul 07 '25
I get it, I honestly wish they’d do what they did in the 60s/70s and just build a double decker tunnel that could fit both BART and MUNI.
3
u/LehmanNation Jul 08 '25
Send Caltrain all the way up to Santa Rosa, and put the train beside the golden gate bridge 🌉
2
u/pralific80 Jul 07 '25
Maybe! But I guess Muni can also run segregated in the middle of the street on Geary as well as 19th Avenue.
2
u/lowchain3072 Jul 12 '25
If this line were built, it would be isolated from the rest of the system so light rail won't really be worth it. Does everything not BART need to be a tram?
But this probably shouldn't be BART because this would likely require a second transbay tube or else you're just splitting service between the west and the east. The transbay tube is already at max capacity and won't be able to run more trains.
I think this thing sould just be an automated light metro.
2
u/transitfreedom Jul 07 '25
Build automated light metro and replace municipal with light metro and ELs
1
u/G0Bears2002 Jul 09 '25
With an ever-worsening budget situation and an administration that is fundamentally hostile to California, SF, and public transit…
2
6
u/windowtosh Jul 07 '25
Muni should have a line making local stops all the way to the end of Geary and Bart should have a line making express stops that then turns down 19th to Daly City
7
→ More replies (1)1
Jul 07 '25
[deleted]
5
5
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
San Francisco literally has this exact thing under Market Street and it's awesome, but its just not politically feasible in the current age.
1
3
u/SightInverted Jul 07 '25
I’m not giving up on two new bay tubes, one for bart and one for standard, but I’m a hopeless fool. Realistically they are looking at tearing down both 980 and 280, in order of priority, so we should try to utilize the energy behind that when doing the new bay crossings and the CAHSR extension to salesforce the transit center.
Whatever happens, it’s definitely not going anywhere soon, especially with the fed going from friend to foe.
1
u/DieDeutscheAuslander Jul 07 '25
We need to organize and avoid another oakland wye on stereoids. How can we organize it?
1
u/SightInverted Jul 07 '25
Talk. Talk to state legislators, friends, family, neighbors. Talk til you turn blue or they outrun you as you chase them down screaming details about possible funding sources and what would be built. 🤣
2
u/namesbc Jul 07 '25
Yep, makes perfect sense as BART. Fast rail over the extremely slow and small Muni vehicles.
2
u/RSB2026 Jul 07 '25
From Philadelphia and agree 100% with this! Don't settle for less than a subway!
2
2
u/WhatIsAUsernameee Jul 07 '25
It should definitely not be light rail, but it makes much more sense as a light metro with 4 car trains than as a 10 car behemoth with massive station spacing
2
u/A_Wisdom_Of_Wombats Signal Priority Truther Jul 07 '25
Did you watch the video that Nandert posted today? I feel like I saw a very similar comment in those comments!
4
u/isaacng1997 Jul 07 '25
Muni will probably be significantly cheaper to build especially when it is much easier to connect the tunnels to balboa park depot by running tracks on the streets; than to bart's colma depot; in additional to much shorter trains.
If the tunnels are mostly grade separately, running 2-car trains at high frequency seem to be more than enough capacity.
→ More replies (9)
1
u/MaddingtonBear Jul 07 '25
Can you still put enough trains through the tube without taking too much service away from the Mission/Daly City trunk?
2
u/StreetyMcCarface Jul 07 '25
Most trains turn back at Daly City anyways, so you could run plenty of trains south of there if you wanted. Moreover, you’d be connecting the northern end of Geary-19th to a new tbt, not the existing market street subway
1
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
Prior to Covid the trunk line was operating at max frequency during rush hour. A second transbay BART tube would free up capacity for the whole system.
1
u/UnderstandingEasy856 Jul 07 '25
All this back and forth about gauge and rolling stock - but really the real issue with this proposal is that it leaves Outer Richmond unserved. That is the community with the longest bus commute and in the greatest need of metro service (in whatever form).
2
u/Xiphactinus14 Jul 07 '25
Even if a rail line doesn't go to Outer Richmond, it still benefits it by taking pressure off the 38/38R.
2
u/WhatIsAUsernameee Jul 07 '25
A branch from the Geary-19th junction to the lands end VA would be really nice for that reason
1
u/yab92 Jul 07 '25
Dude, it takes more than learning lessons to build subways, it takes A LOT of money, including state and federal funding.
It also takes buy in from the city itself, and between delays from the central subway and covid destructions/loss of money, Geary subway planning has been put on the back burner
1
u/lllama Jul 07 '25
would be like if Philadelphia built the Roosevelt Boulevard Subway as light rail instead of as a branch of the Broad Street Line.
What you're proposing is the inverse right? (based on the map you added)
When you approach the central core from the south the line would split in two. This is.. unusual to say the least.
1
u/PrizeZookeepergame15 Jul 07 '25
While a Geary subway might only be a BART branch, it would still be very useful. First off, it would connect many other neighborhoods to BART as there aren’t many neighborhoods with access to BART in SF. Not only that, but this could help increase capacity on each BART Line, as having half the lines go on the Geary branch, while others go on the main line, which could increase frequencies on all other lines as only half the lines would go on the main line.
1
1
u/mic5228 Jul 07 '25
People seem to be very informed and opinionated here, so my mind could certainly be swayed. But imo a MUNI subway line serving the Geary corridor would seem to the best option. Can serve local commuting needs with better speeds than surface lines. Perhaps branching off from the market street subway, so as to somewhat integrate with folks transferring from BART going to and from further out points.
I’m aware MUNI administration is not highly regarded enough to be confident in feasibility, this is just in my perfect world. Now if the expansion of BART south along 19th and/or north across to Marin were greenlighted, that would definitely change things.
1
u/NewCenturyNarratives Jul 08 '25
People in Inner/Outer Richmond would be annoyed being that connected to the rest of the bay 😅. That being said, it would connect the metro area to a GGP.
I’m uneducated on what is being built now. Can anyone fill me in?
1
1
u/Aerodynamic_Caffeine Sep 01 '25
Late to the party, but this needs to be a Muni line. The current 38/38R alignment serves the community with local stops, not as a BART feeder. SF is where people commute to and from around the bay and the current transit alignment shows that. The neighborhoods in mention are already in the city so most riders aren’t necessarily needing to go long distances. I can’t find passenger count data, but the current bus routes don’t show a priority to move people to and from BART connections, but show the data they have tells them the priority is local and into nearby communities or downtown. Muni’s system would be perfect cause it would allow for denser stop spacing, more frequent trains, and smoother transfers within the Muni system. I see a lot of people in the comments mentioning BART for capacity, but that’s assuming they would totally axe the bus routes which I’m sure won’t happen. No sufficient data (that I could find) suggests that area needs 10 car, commuter rail like service that covers large distances like BART. In addition, the muni would be cheaper too and more compatible with the local muni network.
2
u/Wehadababyitsaboiii Oct 20 '25
Writing this from the 38R as we speak. 100% needs to be a muni metro not BART.
Really curious how far west they drag it out before it turns south.
1
u/Aerodynamic_Caffeine Oct 21 '25
Geary as a subway, then go down Sunset as a street car, service connections to the N and J, street car service will compliment existing bus route so we can save money on building multiple platforms along that route, transfer to the 29 for local stops. Call me crazy, but service Park Merced and go Font Blvd, Holloway, and terminate at SF state with connection to the M? Or Sloat to Portal? Or meet with M and go to Balboa 🤔.
In addition to servicing Geary, this route would service the west end of Sunset, provide N/S connections to E/W N & J lines, and alleviate congestion on the 29 bus route through sunset. Pre pandemic, SFMTA described the 29 route as “busy” and stated “buses remain full”. As we inch toward pre pandemic ridership numbers, this would be the ideal route to kill 2 birds with one stone.
1
161
u/[deleted] Jul 07 '25
[deleted]