> A rail line on the Bay Bridge sounds good in principle, but I think it's
> diverting attention from real problems and solutions.
>
> 1. A long time ago, the jobs were in downtown San Francisco and transit
> (e.g. BART, Muni) was designed to funnel people to downtown. This is no
> longer true.
Only to a degree. Even now, downtown San Francisco
generates far more economic activity than any other
political entity in the Bay Area, including any one of the
south bay towns.
> Many persons drive through San Francisco and the bridges to
> get to their real destination. More trains to downtown doesn't solve this.
As I've argued before, this is a benefit, not a problem.
San Francisco is one of the only old inner cities in the
United States to survive as a healthy economic entity, and
we're the only city our size who did not let herself be
bypassed by freeways. This is not a coincidence!
All West Bay roads, and almost all public transit in the Bay
Area, lead to San Francisco. I know of at least one high
tech company that located here because it was the easiest
place for all their employees to get to, especially via
public transit. As an economic strategy, the last thing
this city wants to do is to make it easier to get around
between suburbs without coming here first.
> 2. BART has plenty of capacity. Complaints about BART are no parking
> space, no seat or high fares; not that the trains are packed.
You obviously don't ride BART under the bay during rush
hour.
> 3. People don't seem to ride the train. Caltrain only moves 20,000 riders/day.
That is because it serves low-density suburban
developments. Note that its ridership is rapidly growing
and is already near system capacity. As is happening in Los
Angeles, the density in the Bay Area is rapidly increasing,
and CalTrain will soon carry a lot more riders.
> 4. Seems to be political grandstanding to me. Why does Willie Brown want
> train tracks on the Bay Bridge but will not allow Caltrain to run to the
> Transbay Terminal.
Good question, but not an argument against Bay Bridge
trains.
> Express buses and transit lanes would move people to where they want to go
> at much less expense.
Maybe, but they will also occupy road space which rail, if
slung under the bridge, will not. The latter _dramatically_
increases the capacity of the bridge, while busses will
increase it incrementally at best while still being stuck in
traffic.
> The great thing about buses is you can change routes
Not a consideration on the bridge.
> door to door service is possible.
That's absurd. We can't even provide that in super-dense
San Francisco, there is no way it can be provided in the
suburbs. Might as well just encourage driving!
> More urgent issue: Supervisor Michael Yaki is pushing to delete the
> Milbrae BART/Caltrain transfer station to cut BART expansion costs.
Actually, though I am a supporter of BART, I think this is a
good idea. The Milbrae station is of little benefit to San
Francisco, unlike the airport connection; CalTrain provides
fine service to Milbrae.
_________________________
Donald F. Robertson
San Francisco
donaldrf@hooked.net
Donald's Space Exploration page:
http://www.hooked.net/~donaldrf/index.html
The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually
we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of
inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to
reclaim a little more land. -- Thomas Huxley.