Replying to a message of Richard Webb to Bob Ackley:

 BA>> Years ago I noted that if the big cities were smart they'd
 BA>> consolidate their bus and train terminals at the local airport,
 BA>> making said airport a transportation
 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.

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

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

--- FleetStreet 1.19+