HI Bob,

On Wed 2037-Jul-29 04:13, Bob Ackley (1:300/3) wrote to Richard Webb:

 BA>> hub.  And the question arises, why do cities build airport terminals
 BA>> with public funds but require railroads and bus companies to build
 BA>> their own terminals with their own money (and, of course, pay taxes
 BA>> on those terminals to the city)? 

 RW> Always wondered this myself.  To me it would make more sense to have
 RW> bus train and air terminal in the same place.  A person who travels
 RW> the short haul by bus or train could already be at the right place
 RW> for the transcontinental flight.  But that makes too much sense.

BA> Which, of course, is why it'll never happen.

OF course not, but St. Louis is on the right track with its
Metrolink going to Lambert field anyway. OF course,
Greyhound, etc. are still downtown.

BA> FWIW, the Oakland, CA, airport (actually there are two, the old one
BA> and the new one, and they're right next to each other, making one
BA> really big complex) is larger (now much larger with the new one)
BA> than San Francisco's - which is directly across the bay (SF airport,
BA> BTW, is not located in SF but is several miles south of the city
BA> (and county) limit).  Some years back the BART (rapid transit)
BA> system ran a spur down to the Oakland/Alameda County Coliseum, which
BA> is right next to the airport.  If BART would extend that spur about
BA> a mile it'd be
BA> at the airport terminal, and one could then get from the Oakland
BA> airport to downtown
BA> SF faster than one could get there from the SF airport (and without
BA> having to deal
BA> with any traffic).

But this is CAlifornia, and they're not going to do that.
IT would make a whole bunch of sense to extend bart, but
they'll cry and moan about the tax dollars.

NO state money for that one, the Governator's already
looking at the state going in the tank bigtime.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+