So it's worth asking a question that city planners seem allergic to: what if we built elevated rail instead?

The case is straightforward. Elevated rail delivers the same core service — grade-separated, high-capacity transit that doesn't get stuck behind double-parked Ubers — at a fraction of the cost. You don't have to tunnel through miles of sand, rock, and whatever mysterious infrastructure lies beneath San Francisco's streets. You don't have to relocate every utility line in the Western Addition. You build up, not down, and you do it faster.

Cities across Asia have built extensive elevated rail networks for a tiny fraction of what American cities spend digging holes. Even in the U.S., elevated structures cost dramatically less per mile than underground subway construction. The savings aren't marginal — they're transformational. We're talking about potentially getting the same connectivity for $5-$10 billion less, money that could fund other transit improvements, housing, or — radical thought — not be spent at all.

The objections are predictable. "It's ugly." "It'll cast shadows." "The neighborhood character!" These are the same arguments San Francisco deploys against virtually every piece of new infrastructure. Meanwhile, residents along Geary have been promised better transit for literally a century. At some point, building something imperfect beats planning something perfect that never materializes.

As one local put it, when you're staring down a $30 billion subway proposal in a city that can't keep its existing escalators running, maybe it's time to consider the option that actually gets built within our lifetimes.

San Francisco has a long, expensive history of choosing the most complicated, most costly, most delay-prone option available. Elevated rail on Geary and 19th Avenue deserves a serious look — not because it's glamorous, but because it might actually happen.