4 ms·

You can't blame Silicon Valley for what is the idiocy of various levels of governments. When I first came to the Bay Area, it took me an inordinately amount of

by kjackson2012 14y ago

You can't blame Silicon Valley for what is the idiocy of various levels of governments. When I first came to the Bay Area, it took me an inordinately amount of time to realize that the BART didn't go all the way around the Bay. I just assumed that it did because it's what made the most sense. In fact, the county of San Mateo voted against BART because they didn't want people from other counties to come and take their jobs. So, because of this, you have a ridiculous patchwork and mishmash of transit "solutions" from various levels of government, none of them really working well. If you had a BART that went around the Bay, you could eliminate Caltrain completely, and move that money into making BART even better. Of course, those are at different levels of government, which means that you couldn't really do that. It's at the point now where, except for people that take Caltrain during rush hour, and MUNI in SF, most public transit around the Bay is for poor people. Most people with higher paying jobs can't afford how slow public transit is, and it creates this negative feedback loop where they don't get enough funding to justify a better schedule, etc. Yes, Google has a great bus system that is a competitive advantage when it comes to hiring people. But this is private transit, and it doesn't directly translate to public transit. If you have to service an area like the South Bay, you have to not only service the areas that people need, but then you have to deal with unions, costs, etc.

recursive 14y ago
Unless I misunderstand what Silicon Valley is, I would argue that I can blame a region for its government. Your argument sounds like "You can't blame Oklahoma for their low education standards.".
- wilfra 14y ago
  Oklahoma is a defined area with one state government. Silicon Valley is made up of parts of a bunch of different counties and cities, all with the power to make their own rules. In your example, it would be like saying 'the midwest' or something general like that. That said: Europe was able to solve this and it's even more of a giant clusterfuck of governments. One region of one state of one country should be able to figure it out.
saraid216 14y ago
> In fact, the county of San Mateo voted against BART because they didn't want people from other counties to come and take their jobs. Yes. How dare the county of San Mateo concern itself with the needs of the people who actually live there. Inexcusable.
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  But that's just it, I lived in San Mateo county until recently, and having BART service would have been great for me! The argument that public transit might steal jobs is one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard for not having it. Governments are going to have to get over it; mass public transit is best option for the future of everyone.
  - hvs 14y ago
    Mass public transit is the best option for the future of everyone? I'm going to have to say that is not true simply because there's no best that fits everyone.
    - binarycrusader 14y ago
      Yes, that's right. Mass public transit is the best option for the future of everyone. Mass public transit does include airplanes and sea vessels by the way...
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Good public transit helps everyone, even those who don't use it. The more people who do use it, the better traffic is for people who still drive, the less dangerous the roads are for people who walk or bike, and the less polluted the air is for everyone.
thrownaway2424 14y ago
BART _does_ serve San Mateo County, with six stations, so I'm not sure what you are speaking of.
- jcdavis 14y ago
  San Mateo County opted out of the initial BART system in 1961 though, and is still not a member of the BART district, which is why trips to/from San Mateo county are charged more. http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5427069831/in/photostream/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5427069831/in/photost... has plans around that include a line going down what is approximately the current Caltrain route to Palo Alto. (along with an unbuilt line to the Richmond District and Marin county, since Marin County also opted out)
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  They're likely speaking of the west bay area where only Caltrain service exists. If you're somewhere along El Camino Real, there's no BART train service -- just Caltrain, and then VTA farther south.
- anxrn 14y ago
  You're right. http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanmateo_santaclara.aspx http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanmateo_santaclara.aspx
car 14y ago
It was not the county that voted against a BART system that would go around the Bay, it were the interests of a real estate devloper and Caltrain that fucked this up for the rest of us. It never even got to be voted on. Seeing the pathetic state of public transit in the Bay Area, and thinking how much better it could have been, it incenses me to see how darwinistic capitalism rides roughshot over the common interest. Here the story from our local paper, lest we don't forget history: Electric trains could have been here long ago. In the late 1950s, San Mateo County was one of five counties in the San Francisco Bay Area Transit District. The district could assess taxes and issue bonds and had a round-the-Bay light-rail system planned, according to a history at the website of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The plan derailed, according to the BART account, because San Mateo County supervisors were "cool to the plan." They chose to exit the district in December 1961, citing the proposed system's "high costs" and the "adequate service" from Southern Pacific commuter trains, now Caltrain. George Mader, who retired in 2010 after 45 years as Portola Valley's town planner, has another angle. The "cool to the plan" characters were two men of influence, he said in a March 11 letter to Portola Valley Mayor Ted Driscoll. The "major problems," Mr. Mader said, were T. Louis Chess, who chaired the county Board of Supervisors and worked for Southern Pacific Railway, and David D. Bohannon, a "major player" in the county and the developer of the then-new Hillsdale Shopping Center. Mr. Bohannon claimed that BART would take shoppers away from Hillsdale and into San Francisco, Mr. Mader said, adding that "shopping was rather good (in San Francisco) at the time." For his part, Mr. Chess was protecting Southern Pacific, Mr. Mader said. And the county voters would have had to decide on whether to join BART. "These short-sighted and selfish people did not let the residents vote," Mr. Mader said. "A travesty!" EDIT: cited from http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=10935 http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=10935 EDIT: clarification
- car 14y ago
  Irony of ironies, the son (grandson?) of the developer is now complaining about too much traffic in his hometown. "I think developers represent change, and change is difficult," he says. "A lot of people in Menlo Park don't want change, so they don't want development. ... But now here we are — a very wealthy community that has turned its back on development for many, many years." He recognizes that a lot of the anti-development sentiment comes down to a key issue: the fear that developing the city will lead to more traffic. "Like it or not, Menlo Park, like every other city on the Peninsula, is growing," he says. "What was going on here in the 1950s is not going on now — this is a major urban center. ... I don't like the traffic either — every time I go home in the afternoon, I can't stand driving by Hillview School." EDIT: cited from http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=3655 http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=3655
kevinburke 14y ago
Alamo/Danville voted against BART for a similar preposterous reason, "thugs" from Oakland coming out to the suburbs and causing trouble. This is why BART does not run along the 680 freeway
kinofcain 14y ago
Most of the benefits of bringing BART down the peninsula could be achieved by grade separating and electrifying Caltrain. What's more it could be done at a fraction of the cost and you'd end up with a better, faster system than BART.
- car 14y ago
  <sarcasm> But why would you replace the huge, powerful Diesel engines that blow large billowing clouds of exhaust fumes with wimpy electric trains? And would we still have the crazy searchlights and blaring horns that scare the cattle off the tracks in the middle of the night? </sarcasm>
- mentat 14y ago
  They are electrifying Caltrain with high speed rail funds according to the brochures onboard.
smsm42 14y ago
Actually, I think you can. These people have votes. If they regularly vote in people that can't fix what they are elected to govern, even while collecting substantial sum in taxes, I think at some point people are to blame if they keep electing somebody that is doing crappy job.

recursive 14y ago

Unless I misunderstand what Silicon Valley is, I would argue that I can blame a region for its government. Your argument sounds like "You can't blame Oklahoma for their low education standards.".

wilfra 14y ago
Oklahoma is a defined area with one state government. Silicon Valley is made up of parts of a bunch of different counties and cities, all with the power to make their own rules. In your example, it would be like saying 'the midwest' or something general like that. That said: Europe was able to solve this and it's even more of a giant clusterfuck of governments. One region of one state of one country should be able to figure it out.

saraid216 14y ago

> In fact, the county of San Mateo voted against BART because they didn't want people from other counties to come and take their jobs. Yes. How dare the county of San Mateo concern itself with the needs of the people who actually live there. Inexcusable.

binarycrusader 14y ago
But that's just it, I lived in San Mateo county until recently, and having BART service would have been great for me! The argument that public transit might steal jobs is one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard for not having it. Governments are going to have to get over it; mass public transit is best option for the future of everyone.
- hvs 14y ago
  Mass public transit is the best option for the future of everyone? I'm going to have to say that is not true simply because there's no best that fits everyone.
  - binarycrusader 14y ago
    Yes, that's right. Mass public transit is the best option for the future of everyone. Mass public transit does include airplanes and sea vessels by the way...
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Good public transit helps everyone, even those who don't use it. The more people who do use it, the better traffic is for people who still drive, the less dangerous the roads are for people who walk or bike, and the less polluted the air is for everyone.

thrownaway2424 14y ago

BART _does_ serve San Mateo County, with six stations, so I'm not sure what you are speaking of.

jcdavis 14y ago
San Mateo County opted out of the initial BART system in 1961 though, and is still not a member of the BART district, which is why trips to/from San Mateo county are charged more. http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5427069831/in/photostream/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5427069831/in/photost... has plans around that include a line going down what is approximately the current Caltrain route to Palo Alto. (along with an unbuilt line to the Richmond District and Marin county, since Marin County also opted out)
binarycrusader 14y ago
They're likely speaking of the west bay area where only Caltrain service exists. If you're somewhere along El Camino Real, there's no BART train service -- just Caltrain, and then VTA farther south.
anxrn 14y ago
You're right. http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanmateo_santaclara.aspx http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanmateo_santaclara.aspx

car 14y ago

It was not the county that voted against a BART system that would go around the Bay, it were the interests of a real estate devloper and Caltrain that fucked this up for the rest of us. It never even got to be voted on. Seeing the pathetic state of public transit in the Bay Area, and thinking how much better it could have been, it incenses me to see how darwinistic capitalism rides roughshot over the common interest. Here the story from our local paper, lest we don't forget history: Electric trains could have been here long ago. In the late 1950s, San Mateo County was one of five counties in the San Francisco Bay Area Transit District. The district could assess taxes and issue bonds and had a round-the-Bay light-rail system planned, according to a history at the website of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The plan derailed, according to the BART account, because San Mateo County supervisors were "cool to the plan." They chose to exit the district in December 1961, citing the proposed system's "high costs" and the "adequate service" from Southern Pacific commuter trains, now Caltrain. George Mader, who retired in 2010 after 45 years as Portola Valley's town planner, has another angle. The "cool to the plan" characters were two men of influence, he said in a March 11 letter to Portola Valley Mayor Ted Driscoll. The "major problems," Mr. Mader said, were T. Louis Chess, who chaired the county Board of Supervisors and worked for Southern Pacific Railway, and David D. Bohannon, a "major player" in the county and the developer of the then-new Hillsdale Shopping Center. Mr. Bohannon claimed that BART would take shoppers away from Hillsdale and into San Francisco, Mr. Mader said, adding that "shopping was rather good (in San Francisco) at the time." For his part, Mr. Chess was protecting Southern Pacific, Mr. Mader said. And the county voters would have had to decide on whether to join BART. "These short-sighted and selfish people did not let the residents vote," Mr. Mader said. "A travesty!" EDIT: cited from http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=10935 http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=10935 EDIT: clarification

car 14y ago
Irony of ironies, the son (grandson?) of the developer is now complaining about too much traffic in his hometown. "I think developers represent change, and change is difficult," he says. "A lot of people in Menlo Park don't want change, so they don't want development. ... But now here we are — a very wealthy community that has turned its back on development for many, many years." He recognizes that a lot of the anti-development sentiment comes down to a key issue: the fear that developing the city will lead to more traffic. "Like it or not, Menlo Park, like every other city on the Peninsula, is growing," he says. "What was going on here in the 1950s is not going on now — this is a major urban center. ... I don't like the traffic either — every time I go home in the afternoon, I can't stand driving by Hillview School." EDIT: cited from http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=3655 http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=3655

kevinburke 14y ago

Alamo/Danville voted against BART for a similar preposterous reason, "thugs" from Oakland coming out to the suburbs and causing trouble. This is why BART does not run along the 680 freeway

kinofcain 14y ago

Most of the benefits of bringing BART down the peninsula could be achieved by grade separating and electrifying Caltrain. What's more it could be done at a fraction of the cost and you'd end up with a better, faster system than BART.

car 14y ago
<sarcasm> But why would you replace the huge, powerful Diesel engines that blow large billowing clouds of exhaust fumes with wimpy electric trains? And would we still have the crazy searchlights and blaring horns that scare the cattle off the tracks in the middle of the night? </sarcasm>
mentat 14y ago
They are electrifying Caltrain with high speed rail funds according to the brochures onboard.

smsm42 14y ago

Actually, I think you can. These people have votes. If they regularly vote in people that can't fix what they are elected to govern, even while collecting substantial sum in taxes, I think at some point people are to blame if they keep electing somebody that is doing crappy job.