I find it a bit bothersome when you start to compare SF to Tokyo. The fact that its subway only serves a bit more than 20% of Tokyo's rail traffic, yet at the same time is world top at daily passenger-kms, shows just how massive Tokyo's public transport network is. Earthquake safety have nothing to do with this, it's simply the ability and will to invest in public transport on a massive scale that's proportionate to population growth. I mean just look at table [1]. Japanese do a factor of 25 times the rail passenger kms per person compared to Americans. And I don't think Americans have a much shorter commute. Another way to put it, Switzerland, in total, with just 8M inhabitants, does 1.8x the passenger rail traffic as the whole US [2]. Just think about that for a moment. It doesn't matter whether you put it under ground, above ground or through somebody's swimming pool - any rail is progress in the US.

Edit: Another fun list: The world's 50 busiest train stations. Guess how many are Japanese [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_count...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_usage_statistics_by_count...

[3] http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/30/the-51-busiest-train-s...

It is not a very good argument to call SF seismically active and then compare it to Tokyo. Tokyo sits where three active fault lines converge. Having lived in each for a year, you can expect to experience more activity in two weeks in Tokyo than a year in SF.

Also, claiming that most of Tokyos subway is above ground is incorrect. The subways, Tokyo metro and Toei, are nearly entirely underground within the city center. This is hundreds of stations. Yamanote line is part of an entirely different set of trains for longer distance transit.

Respectfully this is why I called it active. Much like a weather report here is a seismic map of northern and central California: http://scedc.caltech.edu/recent/

Your comment that San Diego, Orange County and LA should not have to pay for infrastructure work in San Francisco presupposes that the Bay Area is contributing less to state taxes then it's receiving. I'm interested to understand stats on geographic collection/distribution of taxes in CA, and how you know the Bay Area is a net beneficiary. I'd venture that the national trend of wealthy cities paying more state/federal taxes then they receive applies within CA.

Also, suggesting that state taxes should not be unevenly distributed among the state misses the point of state taxes. It's fine to argue where the funds should best be used, but not that a county should only get the proportion it contributed. Why not just have local governments be the primary collectors/distributors of taxes then?

BTW, I love southern CA and think you're awesome :)

Thank you, I go to San Francisco every year. I had no problem with financing the Oakland Bridge but the subway a subway has present danger and high costs.

GDP Distribution per Brookings Institute numbers:

Los Angeles: $860-billion San Francisco: $331-billion San Diego: $202-billion San Jose $173-billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

I cannot find the numbers for Orange County as a whole.

This is so much FUD. As a state we spend plenty of money subsidizing infrastructure in places like LA or San Diego suburbs, it just happens that everything is a bit more spread out, so no specific project looks quite as expensive.

Infrastructure spending in cities, even with big projects like bridges and subways, is much more efficient per capita than infrastructure spending in the suburbs.

Compared to the cost of cars, parking spaces, roads of all sizes, deaths and medical bills when cars hit each-other or pedestrians, CO2 emissions from gasoline engines, wasted time on long commutes, immobility in car-centric communities for people unable to drive, health effects of a sedentary lifestyle, etc., subways and other types of mass transit are an incredible bargain.

Beyond transit, consider the additional overhead costs of greater distances to get to schools, hospitals, police and fire departments, government offices, libraries, museums, grocery stores and all sorts of other businesses, or the higher per capita cost for electricity/gas/telecom/water/sewage infastructure, trash collection, street sweeping, etc. etc.

Tokyo "downtown" doesn't have most of its transit above ground. There are only ~3 lines above ground in the center of Tokyo. The Yamanote, the Chou, and the Sobu lines. Compared to 14 below ground. And, they've built plenty of new lines underground. The Oedo line which opened in 2003 is entirely underground. The Fukutoshinsen line which opened in 2013 is entirely underground. The Tsukuba line, 2005, is underground at least downtown.

It's often said the being in the subway in Tokyo is one of the safest places to be in an earthquake. It might be scary but things are less likely to fall from 10 to 20 stories on your head like they are in outdoors in Tokyo.

http://blogdowntown.com/2012/08/6959-metro-tunnels-are-one-o...

On top of that for a place like SF subways don't have to be deep. It's not like there's 100 meters of earth above the subway. There's the street, under which there's the line. The only thing above your head is effectively a bridge construction except unlike a bridge it's got continuous support instead of a leg every 50 meters.

> Even Tokyo has most of it's trains above ground. See Yamanote line with 29 stations versus the 16 cumulative underground stations that both the Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit and Saitama Rapid Railway Line serve.

I've lived in Tokyo for a year, and this comment is grossly ignorant.

First of all, Tokyo Metro is just one subway company in the region. Tokyo Metro according to Wikipedia has 142 unique stations, most of which are underground.

For surface trains, the Yamanote loop line circles central Tokyo, with Chuo-Sobu cutting through the center. There are other surface trains that feed into central Tokyo but don't necessarily take you through Tokyo. There are some trains that also run along sections of the Yamanote line like the Keihin-Tohoku line and Saikyo line.

Other than those lines, if you want to travel around central Tokyo (within the area circled by Yamanote, you will most likely ride a Tokyo Metro subway (underground) or a Toei Subway (underground). Toei is the other major subway company in the region.

If anything, Japan and Tokyo is proof that SF and LA have no reason to not build subways despite their seismically active areas. Remember, Japan, including the Tokyo region, was hit with a 9.0 magnitude earthquake recently and many other high magnitude earthquakes in the last century alone. Tokyo is proof that earthquakes can be mitigated.

If there's one engineering failure of Tokyo it would be reclaimed land. A large portion of Tokyo (famously Odaiba, and Haneda Airport) are built on reclaimed land. This type of land shows problems especially due to earthquakes. For this reason residents tend to shy away from purchasing houses in these areas because there's a high risk of issues with the soil and foundations. But this makes perfect sense, reclaimed land is basically dumping dirt into what used to be water to make more land.

---

The only way this comment gets remotely close to accurate is if it is counting for the entire Tokyo region and not just Central Tokyo. But this would be the equivalent of comparing the entire Bay area. Outside of central Tokyo, the trains do run on the surface. But Tokyo uses trains as a primary means of transportation so lines can continue for hours as they go into remote areas of Tokyo or connect to other lines despite different ownership of the track. For example it is possible to take a single train (no transfers) from Haneda airport to Narita airport. The ride will take over 2 hours but you will have technically traveled on 3 separate lines operated by 3 separate rail companies. Oh and one of those lines is a subway line.