That’s like me taking your grow-your-own-food idea seriously and then arguing against it. I could say something like, the problem with our transportion system is that too many people insist on having back yards big enough to grow their own food. If people gave up their .4 acres and lawn tractor and moved to condos within walking distance of their jobs, we wouldn’t have to worry about noxious fumes from cars or buses.

Of course, my wife made me move to a house with a yard 67 miles from work, and I’m not much of a gardener so I ride a train with a particulate-spewing locomotive every day…

Hey, that’s a grand idea. While we’re at it, let’s all just stay home and, instead of just growing our own pot (not that I’m making any assumptions about you), grow all our food in our back yard so we have no need for jobs either. Then we won’t need any form of transportation. Brilliant! I’ll call my Congressman.

First, I just don’t see what you’re claiming in the data. The number of jobs per resident is higher in San Francisco than in the bay area as a whole, but Oakland and Berkeley have fewer jobs per capita than the regional average (actually, Oakland has fewer than the suburban average). Overall the numbers are pretty close.

Oakland Population: 373,910
Jobs per resident: .296

Berkeley Population: 90,432
Jobs Per resident: 0.431

San Francisco Population: 719,077
Jobs per resident 0.742

Total Urban area population: 1 183 419
Urban area jobs/resident: .578

Suburban Bay Area population: 5 767 841
Suburban Bay Area jobs: 2 386 860
Suburban Bay Area jobs/resident: 0.414

Bay Area Population: 6,951,260
Overall Jobs/resident: 0.454

Second, what definition of urban would you prefer? If I were to drop the definition to 6000 people per square mile then I would be including clearly suburban places like Campbell (6,800 people/mi ^2) as urban, which seems counterintuitive.

ART Fan, I guess you are planning on dying before the effects of our lifestyle make an impact that you are willing to admit to. You are undoubtedly too late for that, but it all goes back to what I said: We are living lives of ease so our children will not in the future.

But I think you have other issues. Why do you talk about “smelly buses,” and not about smelly automobiles? Why are they a concern and not smelly airplanes, the most polluting public transit system in existence?

If you smell diesel exhaust these days, chances are it is from a truck, ambulance, fire engine or something other than a bus. If you smell a bus, chances are it is a natural gas burning bus. There is still more that is being done, but buses have cleaned up their act a lot better than other vehicles. Especially airplanes, that spread their stench over miles. If you go anywhere near an airport, that is the smell that overwhelms everything else. If that is really an issue, we should close all the airports, and then there is no need for the airport connector.

The facts may seem absurd, but they are what they are. I don’t have much time to discuss things today (I have actual work to do), but here are some quick data points for you.

From 1990 Census Data, using 1982 economic census CBD boundaries (the census decided to stop publishing CBD data in 1982, but Wendell Cox tabulated the information for 1990 at http://www.demographia.com/dm-uscbd.htm

Total Employment in SF-Oakland-San Jose CMSA: 3,153,201
Employment in San Francisco CBD: 184,254
Employment in Oakland CBD: 32,800
Employment in San Jose CBD: 29,100
Total Bay Area CBD employment: 246 154

CBD share of bay area total employment: 7.8%

Note that this isn’t the most relevant data because I was referring to more than just the CBD. Using city data from the census and picking a population density of 7000 people/square mile (10.9 people/acre), which should correspond to 3 or 4 dwelling units per acre as the urban/suburban cutoff.

Bay Area nonfarm employment (2007):
Alameda: 626,076
CC: 326,359
Marin: 102,053
Napa: 54,563
San Francisco: 534,015
San Mateo: 309,002
Santa Clara: 849,891
Sonoma: 164,735
Solano: 103,979

Total: 3,070,673

Employment in places with densities of over 7000 people per square mile:

San Francisco: 534,015
Oakland: 110,751*
Berkeley: 39 047*

Note that San Jose is below the density cutoff, so it is excluded, but significant suburban areas are included in Oakland (and arguably San Francisco). Also, note that I’m using residential density rather than employment density, but these are usually related.
* 2002 Economic Census (The latest data available for cities)

Anyhow… Using this (somewhat crude) analysis I get:

Total urban city employment: 683,813

Urban city share of regional employment: 22%

Which is right in the range that I suggested in my prior post. Since 78% of jobs and a greater share of population is in the suburbs, I think that it is reasonable that the suburbs garner a similar share of transportation funding.

There can be multiple trains in a loop-type system and be perfectly safe. How do you think BART operates? Do you think the “Operators” are driving those trains? They operate under Automatic Train Protection which keeps them from running into eachother. People movers like SFO’s AirTrain operate much the same way, although the technology is newer.

A separate right of way, if we’re talking about an elevated track, would cost about the same for bus or people mover. The structure has to support the weight of the vehicles traveling on it as well as support the structure’s own weight, which is substantial. To make a bus more attractive with regard to price, you’d have to move to an at-grade right of way. And you’d have to buy real estate to put it on. That isn’t cheap. Pencil it out before you jump to conclusions.

As for an emergency call, a train “Operator” doesn’t have a clue what’s going on in the cars behind him(or her). He must be notified by train intercom in the case of an emergency. In a people mover, the “operator” that would recieve that emergency call from the intercom is located in the operations center instead of the front of the train. The response to the emergency is the same.