Comments on: so you wanna fight global warming, eh?

By: Marin County, the toll rings for thee - The Capricious Commuter - Getting around the Bay Area with Erik N. Nelson

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:37:43 +0000

[...] to ride public transit, to take the pressure off clogged freeways and cut back on air pollution (CO2, particulates and that old-timey favorites, NOx and [...]

By: Inside Bay Area > The Capricious Commuter > long commutes bad for your healthcare

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:05:23 +0000

[...] not expecting a bailout. I’m the sort of commuter who needs to be punished by society, at least if you believe the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association [...]

By: miked

miked — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:44:25 +0000

I think evening service is more in demand than mid-day service for Caltrain. Also, Caltrain at SF is various lines merging- it’s the express, limited, and local trains all stopping in the same place. As I understand it, Caltrain plans to electrify and once that is done they can provide more frequent service to more stops.

My larger point is that transit to everyone’s front door won’t work if lots of people live in stand alone single family homes. Park and ride can work, and that can decrease congestion and emissions.

By: murphstahoe

murphstahoe — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:56:41 +0000

At rush hour, the frequency of Caltrain is comparable to the East Bay ends of the BART lines. Between 6:59 and 8 AM there are 6 trains leaving SF 4th and King. And the average speed of several of those runs (Baby Bulets) is faster than BART. Certainly in the urban corridor in SF there is a very high frequency on BART, but that is only a function of multiple lines merging. If you are coming from Dublin, your frequency is only every 15 mins.

Caltrain would run more trains midday if the demand were there. 10 years ago service midday was hourly, now it is every 30 minutes, a function of demand.

By: miked

miked — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:22:41 +0000

It’s cost AND quality. I doubt the mortgage payments for a home in Stockton or Vacaville are lower than rent in Berkeley or San Mateo- the difference is that the nearer places have small apartments as opposed to larger homes. If your minimum standard is a stand-alone home to own (a reasonable desire from a personal and financial point of view) then cost does force many people to make long commutes. Unless people break out of the mindset that they need a single family home, we need to look at longer distance transit options, like giving BART frequency to Caltrain and Caltrain speed and frequency to Calitol Corridor and ACE.

By: Dot

Dot — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:37:36 +0000

I appreciate the tone of this blog — any discussion of commuter options has to be
realistic about how people live, meaning what they do in reality, not what they
“should” do. There is often a very ideological slant to these discussions, what
I’d call “environmental evangelism” that is so overbearing that it winds up being
counterproductive, because it refuses to be objective. Eg, look at the phenomenal
backup at the Bay Bridge toll plaza — I would never put myself thru that unless it
were desperately necessary, but obviously many people do, and not all of them
are addicted to driving — some must need to drive. So the question is, “What would
enable more people to take transit?” — that would be realistic, rather than self-righteous.
(and btw, the text won’t wrap)
As for people who buy home way out yonder — it’s not just selfishness, or a mad
desire for a giant house, it’s mostly COST — obviously. People can’t afford homes
close in, and chances are, they’d much prefer a shorter commute if it were possible.
Also, fyi, more density close in will NOT prevent urban sprawl — only an enforceable
urban growth limit will do that, and odds are good that it will never happen.

By: Reedman

Reedman — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:09:35 +0000

Real estate tax policy plays a part in commute patterns. Or more precisely,
in providing an incentive to commute a longer distance to a new
job instead of moving closer. Two examples:

One of the side-effects of Prop 13 is that people who own
homes are encouraged not to move if their job moves. If I sold
my house and bought an identical one closer to my job, my property
taxes would more than double.

Many municipalities (Berkeley, for one) want “a piece of the pie” every time
a home changes hands, so they have substantial ‘transfer fees’. Once again, if you were
to change jobs and change to an identical home nearer your job, you would find
a local civil servant with their hand in your wallet taking a percentage.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:01:05 +0000

I would like to have a short commute, for my own sanity as well as to reduce my impact on the earth, but it’s a higher priority for me to have a job. Every couple years, whatever company I’m working in decides to reorganize itself by abruptly dumping half or more of its workforce, leaving a bunch of people needing to find a new job quickly. Of course when I’m job-hunting I try for something close to home, but if I happen to find an opportunity an hour or two away, I take it, and hope to find something nearer later.

Some people who are relatively unattached have the luxury of being able to move to a new apartment close to whatever job they take. But that doesn’t work for a family with two or more jobs, children in schools, friendships with the neighbors, and a well-worked vegetable garden.

I think sometimes as I pass commuters going the other way that there should be some way for us to swap jobs, so they could be productive in their towns while I’m doing the same thing in mine. And I wonder whether employers would be willing to consider swapping employees — they’d get points for doing something “green” and they’d get a less-stressed workforce.

Somehow the long-term solution for sustainable living will have to include more stable employment centers, and/or a lot more effective telecommuting.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:01:37 +0000

I don’t get the last comment. No I don’t have a room for rent because I rent. But I do like dogs, for whatever that is worth. I ride a bus to a train to a bus every day (well, sometimes I walk rather than one of the busses). The weather is nice where I live so I never use the heat.

I don’t see why that matters.

My last comment was a bit angry- and may have misrepresented my own point- sorry.

My argument is that suburban commuters do not pay their fair share due to subsidies. I don’t see what’s wrong with imposing carbon taxes or congestion charges that would put a more accurate price on suburban life. Maybe then more people would choose to live closer to where they work. Or people might choose to work closer to where they want to live. Either way, it isn’t as if those freeways are actually free- we all pay for them; we just don’t all use them to the same extent.

By: Capricious Commuter

Capricious Commuter — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:34:46 +0000

Mike, you got a room for rent? You like dogs? I’ll turn off the lights, turn down the thermostat, and we can ride the bus together.