Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry


As promised. May add more later. :




Weather It is normal to go outside in many seasons Doesn't usually get above 90 in the winter or snow in the summer SF
Sports Giants win at baseball. 49ers go to the superbowl caps are actually in DC....? SF
Subway Bart Metro DC(SF, y u no label trains?)
Jobs Tons of startups Tons of defense contractors SF (no contest)
Rent Astronomical Barely Stratospheric DC
Shopping Piedmont Boutique + infinity others ... Where the stores are? SF
People Full of beautiful weirdos Full of carbon copy lobbyist types SF
Disasters Overdue for apocalyptic earthquake Self inflicted government incompetence DC
Friends Christmas, Board Games, and Girls I Used To Date I met more people in a weekend than I usually would in a year SF
Recreation Actual Ocean. Actual Mountains Fake Snow and the other bay bridge SF
Actual Skyscrapers Yes No SF
Girls A few awesome ones 99% matches by the bucketload SF (Freaky Girls <3)


( 30 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 24th, 2013 12:24 am (UTC)
Uhhh, the BART is way better than Metro once you figure it out (it takes like, two tries).
Apr. 24th, 2013 12:44 am (UTC)
I dunno about that. I did figure it out by my second try (since I learned to ignore the colors, nice as they might be). But it still seemed slowwwww. Like always stopping on the tracks, and not going very fast when it was going. Also, perhaps a bit more dirty.

This might also be my fault for trying to take mass transit from Oakland to friggin' San Jose.

Anyway, though, BART also seems to go in one direction through the city, with no perpendicular line.
Apr. 24th, 2013 01:14 am (UTC)
It's cheaper, it's just about as fast (the stoppages you describe sound unusual), and it has timed transfers (as opposed to waiting at Metro Center for 20 minutes all the time). It is definitely not designed for Oakland > San José, because assholes in the peninsula quashed plans to let BART go all the way around.

You don't need a perpendicular line on BART in the city. That's what SF Muni is for.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:26 am (UTC)
Jorge also said the stoppages were unusual. It hopelessly missed the timed transfer points too, and that led to me missing my bus to San Jose from Fremont (where BART ended), and having to wait 20 minutes for a bus that only went as far as Great Mall. The whole experience was dog slow, and my phone's utter inability to hold a charge didn't help.

I never had to transfer within BART, so I can't really speak to that part of it.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:28 am (UTC)
The timed transfers between systems are also tricky. One thing the DC Metro has going for it is that there is only one service, while the Bay Area has many transit jurisdictions... but I will stand by my claim that the Metro is terrible and awful and I hate it very much.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:42 am (UTC)
Well to go outside of the Subway systems... yeah, there are a fuckton of transit systems and modes and they are a bit confusing.

I've never ridden VRE, and have used MARC as much as I've used Caltrain, so it didn't seem fair to include all those things.
Apr. 26th, 2013 01:24 am (UTC)
In 4-5 years the BART will go to Great Mall, and Berryessa, so no need for a bus transfer, I will just pick you up at Berryessa, the station is under construction right now, I still find the stoppages weird, it must have been a timed transfer thing between lines.
Apr. 26th, 2013 01:22 am (UTC)
I'm going to disagree with this assessment, mostly because Metro serves the urban areas of DC metro better than BART does for the urban areas of the Bay Area.
Apr. 26th, 2013 01:36 am (UTC)
Are you complaining about inadequate service within SF/OAK or lack of service to San José?
Apr. 26th, 2013 02:05 am (UTC)
The former, SJ wasn't part of the original plan for BART, that comparison would be similar to saying Metro should go to downtown Baltimore. I guess my point is that BART serves more of a commuter tool, than an urban transit, than say Metro which seems more of a hybrid.
Apr. 26th, 2013 02:30 am (UTC)
Ha! You called me on my Baltimore retort. ;)

I think to adequately and honestly judge Metro as urban transit within DC against BART as urban transit within San Francisco, we have to also factor in Muni's light rail (and, if you're feeling generous, major bus lines). In a place with so many hills and the constant looming threat of earthquakes it doesn't exactly make a ton of sense to run high-speed subway tunnels or raised track through a the city.

All I know is that when I was in HS (when Metro sucked somewhat less), I loathed transferring at Metro Center because I always managed to just miss a train after which I'd have to wait 20' for the next train. In grad school, getting from Berkeley to John's place required a timed BART transfer at MacArthur (instantaneous 95% of the time) and a transfer to muni (<5' unless muni was fucked that day).

The one joy I derive from Metro nowadays is the spectacle of John or anyone else from out of town attempting to figure out how much a trip is going to cost. (PS did you know you have to pay for paper tickets now?? I didn't find this out until I had to exitfare and there was a line because only one of four machines at WFC was working.)
Apr. 26th, 2013 04:23 am (UTC)
Okay, the Metro system has changed somewhat since I was there, I've used the timed transfers at MacArthur before too, since I didn't like driving to Berkeley often, and that was well timed. Metro will soon be going to Dulles as well. People report that the BART system is confusing, having used the Metro system before the first time I used BART I found it straight forward (Millbrae to SFO), the ticketing system is actually very similar, but Metro has peak and off-peak pricing.

The station at DCA is also better to get to flights than the SFO station which practically requires you to change to the airTrain anyway.

I have a clipper card, which I actually find an improvement on getting around the Bay Area, since there are so many systems, I don't view the many system approach for getting around SF and other urban areas a plus. And Muni sucks, I've gotten stuck in the Metro tunnels for a 5 minute delay, BART is better than that, Muni has had issues many times, it isn't that good. I know it servers SF in a complementary role, but I don't think that detracts from Metro. I was just judging BART vs Metro on their merits alone, without other systems to count.

I don't recall there being a Baltimore retort, must've missed it. Granted distance-wise it is apt, but San Jose is more upscale than Baltimore, and there is continuous development on both sides of the bay, versus the more scattered suburbs in Maryland, so it does break down.

I have used in the Bay Area: Muni light rail, buses, AC transit buses, BART, Caltrain, VTA light rail, Samstrans buses, VTA buses, and granted the Clipper card helps, it is still a pain in the ass to switch so many times.

PS. wtf? really, now you have to pay for paper tickets, the dang Smartrip cards costs money too.
Apr. 26th, 2013 04:43 am (UTC)
For a while Metro had 3 pricing brackets, but I think they went back to 2 after everyone hated it so much.
Apr. 26th, 2013 04:57 am (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds harder to deal with, admittedly variable pricing is not well liked, the Bay Bridge $6 peak toll and $4 off-peak did annoy some, if you're in SoCal you can look at SR-91 express lane pricing schedule here: http://www.91expresslanes.com/schedules.asp

Now that is variable pricing!
Apr. 26th, 2013 05:02 am (UTC)
I swear, when I was getting on the metro today, somebody was talking about it being "peak-of-the-peak"; how George knew it was gone before the rest of us, I don't know.

Also the 495 express lanes are charged at whatever rate they feel is appropriate (mostly based on traffic load), so it is highly variable (and not in a predictable way).
Apr. 26th, 2013 02:43 am (UTC)
Totally incidentally just happened upon this: http://www.walkscore.com/transit
Apr. 24th, 2013 02:51 am (UTC)
You forgot to mention the food scene.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:24 am (UTC)
I thought of it but intentionally omitted it, because I don't care. Eating has always been about company for me. If it's easier to get people to go out and eat with me, that's a plus. But the food itself?

I was rather impressed by the gastropub I randomly stopped at in Haight-Ashbury, but didn't have any other meaningful meals in the city. Actually, Sylvain (my host) took me to some random spots in Oakland, and they were cool. Oh, and I suppose that the meal I had in fucking Campbell (south bay lol) was good, if overpriced.

I care more about the beer. As much as I'm a Sierra Nevada whore, I was distinctly unimpressed by Anchor Steam. I don't know if DC has a signature beer, though the variety of regional microbrews(especially if we count dogfish head) makes it a very tight competition. I failed repeatedly to try big daddy, which seemed to be on tap in theory everywhere.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:29 am (UTC)
Big Daddy is awesome :D
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:38 am (UTC)
Yeah, but there was always some problem when I tried to get it - like, they ran out of it, or that tap was broken, or something. Next time.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:34 am (UTC)
Wait, so to clarify: you care more about the presence of skyscrapers than about the quality of the food you eat?
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:39 am (UTC)
I admire the "Soylent" guy.

No but seriously, other than the extent to which it impacts my health, I don't care that much. Food is something that has to be taken care of, but has little value in itself.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:53 am (UTC)
Fine, but I am finding it hard to imagine what value walking past a skyscraper has. Or is it just reassuring to know that they're there..?
Apr. 24th, 2013 04:11 pm (UTC)
Reassuring, no, but it gives a certain cachet, a feeling of being in "the city", that DC never gave me.

Granted, being almost constantly in view of some famous landmark (like the Washington Monument or the Capital) has a certain appeal of its own, but its not all that - to me, anyway.

On a related note, it would seem for young, single, people, the criteria that matters above all else in a living location is "urbanness". It is quite common to live in the city and commute to the suburbs, even though that means a longer commute and paying more rent (e.g., living in SF and taking the Google Bus to Mountain View). This has all kinds of interesting effects that are worth a post in their own right; but it's certainly not something you can casually dismiss.
Apr. 24th, 2013 10:32 pm (UTC)
I think you'll get over the skyscrapers thing once you spend a year away from DC. What's important about a neighborhood is represented in all of the other categories you list -- e.g., the social scene, the tastes catered to by shops and clubs (and restaurants, if that had been on your list), the activities available to you, etc. While it's true that skyscrapers correlate with high population density, which in turn correlates with diverse and vibrant neighborhoods (which is ultimately what you are after) there are counterexamples to all of these things. It's perfectly possible to have a fun neighborhood with all of the things you want that consists solely of low-rise structures. (And at the same time, there are e.g., financial districts that are full of skyscrapers but boring as hell. I think I heard Dallas is like this.) So yeah, I dismiss skyscrapers as being a red herring.
Apr. 24th, 2013 11:35 pm (UTC)
Well, yes. San Jose was like that - tall buildings, boring as hell.

Anyway, it's not at all meaningful, it's just kind of "cool, I'm in the city!" Sort of like seeing palm trees, which also impresses me.
Apr. 26th, 2013 01:29 am (UTC)
There are palm trees all over Stanford, I could've taken you there if you really like palm trees. LOL.
Apr. 26th, 2013 01:28 am (UTC)
You lived in Pittsburgh, Dallas depends on the neighborhood. SF financial district is boring too in comparison to many other areas of the city.
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:46 am (UTC)
I was gonna say, SF should've won just for the crossdressing element alone, eh?
Apr. 24th, 2013 03:55 am (UTC)
( 30 comments — Leave a comment )