Comments on: they saw this in 1957, luckily for us

By: Guy Span

Guy Span — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:57:21 +0000

You may be interested in my article on (Not boring) depreciation as BART is now looking for billions of more dollars. I wrote this about four years ago and while I take a certain amount of glee in being proven correct, it is still a sad story about how the MTC allocates transportation funds and how public agencies play games with depreciation. Here’s the link, let me know what you think.

http://www.baycrossings.com/dispnews.asp?id=380

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:20:49 +0000

What does “more flexible transportation” mean? Employers do already hire people Stockton who drive to San Jose and other Bay Area cities. It’s not commute vs not commute; it’s commute in ways that are more destructive vs more sustainable.

By: Bruce De Benedictis

Bruce De Benedictis — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:55:37 +0000

Ripping up all these passenger rails and replacing them with more flexible transportation would be cheaper and more utility. But the point is not to get more utility or to save money. The point is to make longer commutes more acceptable, so that employers have a larger pool of employees to draw on, so that they can keep wages down and discriminate against people who might live closer to the job, but not meet whatever other criteria they may have in hiring, such are the correct race, national origin, religion or whatever.

The point is also to allow developers to buy up cheap land which is far away from jobs and cover them with MacMansions which they can sell at enormously inflated prices. The whole point of BART was to make it acceptable to cover up the local farmland with houses. We no longer get our food from nearby central Contra Costa County, and soon there will be no more farms in the eastern part of the county. It is trucked in from farther and farther away.

That is why there is the push for high-speed rail between the Bay Area, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. If they can get it, they can buy up all the farmland in the valley and sell them to commuters. They need the high-speed to make the commute seem possible. That is why they are lying about the cost of building it, its economy, and its ecological benefits. Having devasted the locals, they are going after the state. We will not have food any more, but the developers will have their profits.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:47:55 +0000

Actually doubletracking and electrifying the Capitol Corridor is cheaper and of more utility. go here http://www.bayrailalliance.org/ for details.

By: Reedman

Reedman — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:27:19 +0000

The present problem with BART is that it was designed for the Bay Area of
1957. San Jose is now the 10th largest city in the USA. Building the
Warm Springs Extension, and then connecting to VTA Light Rail
should be the priority in order to service the 2007 transit corridors.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:31:51 +0000

Ashby is more comparable to a station in a more residential area, Park Slope if you will, BUT on the several block route from my house there are two coffee sources one of which has occasional live music.
The real issue is YES BART was VERY poorly designed routewise. That said its what we have, so the task is to build around it and nudge it to better serve us. I am ecstatic they are planning to upgrade headways evenings and weekends. Better late than never!

By: anon

anon — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:22:45 +0000

David – Regards to Ashby Vs. the East Village, I’m getting more at the issue of what one finds upon leaving a station – walk out of Astor Place or Delancy/Essex and grab a coffee or a slice – window shop, or walk by some people on the street. The point isn’t the subway stop – its the neighborhood around it.

By: Aaron Priven

Aaron Priven — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:45:04 +0000

Scott is 100% right when he says that you want to put your rail system in built-up areas, even if it’s more expensive. Compare this to VTA, which builds its light rail systems in the middle of nowhere and then has to wait twenty years for development to happen there.

The real problem with LA’s rail system is that it’s such a drop in the bucket compared to the area that needs to be served. LA’s more recent approach of making enhanced bus systems (“Rapid”) that blanket the area much more thoroughly is probably a better plan for them — moderate results everywhere rather than extreme results in a few places.

By: Scott Mercer

Scott Mercer — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:36:42 +0000

Well, I am from Los Angeles. And I’d like to defend my fair city. Specifically, our rail system.

I dispute your opinion of MetroRail as “limited.” This is our mass transit rail system. Four light rail lines and 2 (okay 1 and 1/2) subway lines. 73 miles of rail, and we’ll have about 92 miles by the end of 2010 when two projects are done. We’re the fourth largest in the USA, right behind NY, Chicago, and you guys. We’re coming up fast behind you.

If you include our commuter rail (RPR) system (Metrolink, confusingly), there’s another 400 or so miles of track you can add on, over 5 different counties. We have the most ridden single light rail line in the nation, the Blue Line, with 75-80,000 riders daily.

Doesn’t sound limited to me. I will agree that it was built at huge cost, but I don’t get your criticism that it was constructed through “Built up areas.” That’s the only place TO build it, so you get the most ridership! The more ridership, the easier it is to justify the huge expenses involved.

With any luck and a lot of money, we’ll be building another 13 miles of subway, and then we’ll have a nice system of 105 miles, getting really close to the length of BART and MUNI right now. We’re breathing down your neck. If you’ve never ridden our rail system, try it out the next time you’re in L.A. You might actually like it.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:56:39 +0000

Ashby is 10 min walk from my front door–just about as good as when I lived in the East Village in NY the same time from three different subway stations. Nearby, two commercial strips a couple blocks each way from the station. But you are certainly correct that a better planned line would have been either UNDER Telegraph or College thus an Ashby Station would be close to a pre existing major hospital and stronger commercial strips. As to feeder buses, many have been eliminated over the last decade and half as well as savaging the joint fares.
Of course express tracks should have been part of the design–Wash DC is learning that now too. Bruce is right, the design was suburban friendly, not city friendly, BUT despite massive subsidy for the few long distance riders the urban core generates the bulk of riders.