71 ms·

Egads. The capital expenditures.

• wyclif 13y ago
  And don't forget the infamous SF NIMBYs.
  • mjn 13y ago
    It's one issue, but I think you could overcome NIMBY opposition if the money were there. Even traditionally transit-averse LA (finally) managed to overcome the NIMBYs who had blocked the purple line in the 1990s, and is building it now. But the cost of the transit that could usefully be built in the SF Bay Area is really high, so high that it's never really had serious funding prospects and made it to the political-wrangling stage. For example, the transit situation within SF would be a lot better if a crosstown subway replaced the N-Judah or the Geary bus, but there aren't any current prospects for funding such a thing, so the Geary BRT is being built as the low-cost option. The BART extension to San Jose is also mostly hitting cost issues rather than NIMBY issues. It's currently going to extend to... almost San Jose, the north outskirts, because the funding secured so far isn't enough to build the final portion through to downtown and connect to Diridon.
• skybrian 13y ago
  Buses don't require a lot of capital, which is why there are tech company shuttle buses and not tech company train lines. It would make sense to make public buses work better (more dedicated lanes, more expresses, and so on). Also, tech companies are already outsourcing shuttles to contractors. Those contractors could run other lines if someone were willing to pay them. If it made sense for the tech companies to pay the city to run buses then they probably would. The question is how to provide better service while serving the general public. I wonder if a company like Uber would eventually start running buses?