San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment when compared with Manhattan's subway:
* Manhattan subway map: https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg
* Bay Area subway map: https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif
* Manhattan compared to SF: https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg - the entire first subway map fits in the white space of this one
Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small. More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology (boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where Musk's Boring Company comes into play.
I'm grateful that we decided to do this in a way that has fewer negative externalities, and probably lower total cost to society, than a freeway expansion. Seriously, we're lucky that the intention behind BART gave us anything resembling a train.
If you try to read it as a way to connect urban neighborhoods (like Manhattan's subways), you're going to be disappointed, because it isn't one.
Remember that most city land area is essentially suburban, and that SF/Oakland/SJ are less than a third of the region's population. Transportation that serves the needs and preferences of the regional electorate is vanishingly unlikely to resemble the Manhattan subway system, or make any sense for the tiny minority of us living on urban blocks. It's going to look like BART and Caltrain: infrequent stations in low-rise neighborhoods with big parking lots, infrequent service outside peak commute hours, etc.
Here's the Metro North station in New Rochelle, NY: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911459,-73.785247,3a,75y,93..... Lot's of parking, but also several 30-40 story high-rises within walking distance.
This is Mamaroneck, a fancy NY suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9537644,-73.7359993,3a,75y,3....
This is Portchester: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0002183,-73.6633792,3a,75y,2.... New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit.
The Sunnyvale CA Costco is literally next door to the Lawrence Caltrain station and has been for over 30 years (it was originally built as a Price Club).
Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2.
By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.
Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2
Manhattan ~69,400/m^2
all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Edit: bonus round! I got Manhattan right but did the reverse error for SF (quoting km^2 for miles^2).
Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.
And yet, the city grows bigger and taller every year. And that's awesome. Fuck the NIMBY crowd.
Imagine all of that replaced by public transportation and two buildings
NYC is no wonderland with its antiquated infrastructure but get it together Cali