Read on Twitter
For half the cost of a new @SFBART tube (which only adds room for 50,000 workers during rush hour), we could build publicly owned office towers in the East Bay, make use of existing capacity on trains going the other direction, & earn enough rent to make BART free. Thread 1/
Here's an example of what office towers at the Pleasanton BART station could look like. These buildings can hold the same number of workers as an entire hour of Transbay Tube capacity. 2/
Here's the thread that inspired this. The estimated $32-49 billion cost of a 2nd BART tube is equal to half the cost of the entire CA high speed rail system, and about the same as the cost to build an entire downtown SF of offices. https://twitter.com/BayBetter/status/1285336197716303872 3/
Another example, at Warm Springs station in Fremont. Like Pleasanton, this is also a end-of-the-line station near existing jobs and with minimal gentrification risk (the area is one of the wealthiest in the East Bay). 4/
Space is a bit tighter at Walnut Creek. Unlike the other two lines, this one isn't at an end-of-the-line station, since Pittsburg and Antioch don't have much of an existing office cluster to build off of. 5/
Why does a BART tube cost so much? In large part because it requires a second subway tunnel and set of stations in SF, as the current SF line is also at capacity. 6/ https://twitter.com/bgould4berkeley/status/1285472641730490368
A legit concern is that of "jobs sprawl" - where moving jobs into suburbs causes housing development to move even further out into farmland. Could be solved by agricultural preservation zoning and urban growth boundary laws. 7/ https://twitter.com/aceckhouse/status/1285471008120438784
Another thing to think about: Office clusters on the 680 corridor may also require a 680 bart line. https://twitter.com/asmallteapot/status/1285477893825388544
More thoughts:
1) if CA can reduce transit construction costs the math goes back in favor of more tubes.
2) the larger issue is where the Bay's central city should be. SF has serious geographical challenges, and doesn't act like it wants the role anyway. https://twitter.com/CAveryLittle/status/1285457768355258368?s=19
1) if CA can reduce transit construction costs the math goes back in favor of more tubes.
2) the larger issue is where the Bay's central city should be. SF has serious geographical challenges, and doesn't act like it wants the role anyway. https://twitter.com/CAveryLittle/status/1285457768355258368?s=19
There are two other optionsfor shorter commutes besides 1) Suburban Office Centers and 2) 2nd Transbay Tube. These are 3) New Homes in SF and 4) New Offices in Downtown Oakland.
It's quite possible we need all four. The question is which one to do first.
It's quite possible we need all four. The question is which one to do first.
