Hi Bob,

On Sat 2037-Aug-01 07:46, Bob Ackley (1:300/3) wrote to Richard Webb:

 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.

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

Ridden metrolink a few times, along with Bi State bus lines
in St. Louis area.  AT the time I lived/worked in the area
(1978) it was still excellent service, and this was before
Metrolink.  I've done metrolink since when there to visit my daughter. 
That was nearly a decade ago, and even then in
Metrolink's early years it was good service.


 BA>> 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 at the airport terminal, and one could then get from
 BA>> the Oakland airport to downtown SF faster than one could get there
 BA>> from the SF airport (and without having to deal with any traffic).

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

BA> Back in the 1960s when BART was invented, one ironclad tenet was
BA> that there would be *NO* federal money involved.  BART has strictly
BA> to that policy and there isn't a *dime* of federal money involved in
BA> it.  After the system was up and running the cities on the SF
BA> peninsula in particular  wanted to have BART extend its line down
BA> the peninsula - but they refused to abide by the *no federal money*
BA> stipulation (IOW they would not enact the local taxes required). 
BA> The fact that BART has not extended much in recent years can be
BA> attributed to that conflict - communities want BART service but they
BA> also want federal money to pay for it, and BART won't allow that. 

OF course, which is why I said it'll never happen.
cOmmunities in metropolitan areas are big on wanting mass
transit services, until the bill comes due, then there's a
lot of moaning about the costs involved.  Knew Bart was one
of these, no federal $$$ projects.


BA> Note that for decades the feds have been trying to get control of
BA> BART, but thus far they haven't been able to because it has no
BA> connection with the nation's rail
BA> system (and thus cannot be involved in 'interstate commerce') and it
BA> accepts no federal funds (so bureaucrats' threats to cut off such
BA> funds are meaningless). 


Yep, have read on this one too.  I follow developments in
public transit rather closely, sort of a vested interest in
them .

BA> Back in 1975 I rode on BART from Hayward to downtown SF.  Took less
BA> than 30 minutes and cost less than $2; the bridge toll alone at the
BA> time was $1. When BART went into operation its stations had large
BA> *free* parking lots for commuters (my sister says most are no longer
BA> free) and the local bus company rejiggered some of its routes to
BA> service the BART stations.

I'm sure, wanted to encourage people to use it.  I note your comment that
parking is no longer free.


Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+