But it was still better than the taking BART from Oakland to San Francisco. Trains every 20 minutes. Price > $3 under the bay. No monthly pass, so its hugely expensive. And you are lucky or careful if you manage to live less than 1/2 hours walk from the BART station. And it stops running at midnight.
In the Bay area, you can live without a car if you live in the heart of San Francisco. And if you live there you can afford a car. Everywhere else, it would be a struggle. If the nominally progressive SF bay area can't manage to put together a half-way decent public transit system, could any other place in the US?
If the effect of $5+/gallon gasoline were to improve this situation, would city-living workers not gain in the longer term?
Erik
On 4/14/05, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> In Manhattan. It is a different story at JFK or, say, Astoria. Or
> weekends.
>
> But that is not the issue here. I am not saying that NYC has a bad subway
> system - it does not. All I am saying that even at is best, the US has been
> incapable of creating a transit system as good as the French did, or even
> the Brits. Certainly not for the lack of technical ability, bit rather for
> the lack of political will. And it is not only because of the frequency of
> trains but above all, area covered by the subway system. If you live in the
> bowels of New Jersey or even Queens or Brooklyn, you may take a long bus
> ride before you see a subway stop.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>