Hacker News Reader

Comment by dekhn | Hacker News Reader

I totally agree with the Geary line, although I'd prefer an alternative line: one that goes all the way from downtown to ocean beach under Golden Gate Park, with stops at the major museums and other tourist attractions in the park. From the middle of the park, you can reach both Irving/Judah (major Sunset street) and Geary (although Geary is a hike from the center of the park).

View on HN

I think it makes a lot more sense for the Geary line to terminate in GG Park or somewhere in the inner Richmond. The density in the area around Ocean Beach does not justify a 3 mile extension from inner Richmond to the beach. A 1 mile subway line from Chinatown to the Marina would serve almost the same amount of people.

This is why you build for the future - not the present.

Then build a subway to Hunters Point it that's your logic. Ocean Beach is entrenched in hard line Nimbyism and any sort of high density vision for the area is nothing short of a pipe dream. Paying billions for a subway all the way to ocean beach is very low priority based on where jobs and housing are being built.

I hate to meme.. but... why not both?

interestingly, the N always filled up completely within a few blocks of Ocean Beach (inbound). There is a huge demand for ridership there that is being underserved. I know they put in some improvements (back when I rode it, the biggest improvement was when they had "watchers" who made sure the drivers didn't spend half an hour in the bathroom before starting their return drive.

HN has a completely crazy idea of SF density.

http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/183

There's a density map. The Geary corridor is quite dense, certainly as dense as any area not already well served by BART.

There is already a line that runs on Irving/Judah - it's the N line. Goes from Van Ness through Cole Valley and then tracks through UCSF and the sunset. Switches from Irving to Judah on 9th ave.

But it's not a subway, it gets stuck with the cars. It's basically a glorified bus line.

They should dig and bury the N line. And then put stops every, say, 6-8 blocks instead of the current 2-3.

That'll be a huge amount of capital. The sunset is not very dense, so surface-level transit could work fine. The real trick is keeping cars out of the way of the N, via dedicated right-of-way and transit signal priority.

What about an elevated line? Less initial capital but similar benefits to an underground line, though I doubt it'd fly in the current political environment.

Did you hear about residents protesting that a 100% affordable housing projected blocked their view? Some San Franciscans have an entitled view that their basic rights include the right to have a nice view from their house (to the detriment of any other social issue).

Seems like if they wanted to assure themselves of a permanently-good view, they shoulhd have bought up all the air rights between their windows and the ocean.

Dig-and-cover type projects aren't as expensive as pure tunneling. Judah is ideal for it: wide and straight.

The N isn't that bad. I used to live near UCSF and would take it out to the beach on nice days.

Now the Green Line in Boston -- that's a glorified bus line.

The N line is the most dysfunctional and crowded lines. I used to depend on it, and it was terrible- you can count on it not showing for 45 minutes (outbound @ parnassus) and then stop/turn around at 19th or 37th without another train for 45 minutes. And, as mentioned, it gets horribly slowed by traffic in the busy corridors.

The point of this line would be serve the park and Richmond and Sunset, without the delays of the Irving line.

That makes me wonder - would routing it under the park make it easier or harder to build? Lots of factors - property ownership, construction costs, land use restrictions...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com