5 ms·
The only way I'm willing to accept further taxes on driving is when California actually has real public transit coverage across the entire state. Until then, d
by binarycrusader 14y ago
The only way I'm willing to accept further taxes on driving is when California actually has real public transit coverage across the entire state. Until then, driving is the best option for many individuals.
There are large sections of even the more highly populated areas of California (like the bay area) that are not served by public transit, or are inadequately served by it (for example, Gilroy has only three trains per day during the week and none on the weekend/holidays).
- protomyth 14y agoYou're not going to get it. They are spending their money on a train. It may work, it may not, but it is way over budget compared to what was on the ballot. How many more people would have been served by spending the money on buses, drivers, and bus exclusive lanes / roads? At some point the roads will be used by what comes next so we might as well make sure they are maintained.
- smsm42 14y agoThere are different definitions of "covered" too. I have a bus stop 2 minutes from my home, and next to my work. So I would be considered "covered", right? Only thing it's 20 minute drive and 2 hour bus ride with 2 changes and some of the routes don't operate the whole day, as you pointed out. So if I have choice of spending 4 hours of my life per day in buses and having next to zero mobility (if I need to go somewhere else before or after work I'm out of luck, that may make 2 hours into 3 or 4 hours commute) - against just hopping into a car and be done in 20 minutes, no way I will even consider public transport as an option. It may be fine for a big highly urbanized city (I've always preferred public transport when going to San Francisco, for example) but for something like the rest of Silicon Valley it's not even funny how bad it is.