»On the shortcomings of Bay Area transit

While Caltrain declares a fiscal emergency, the state delayed a vote for funding high-speed rail in the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco corridor, and regional transit agencies in the Bay Area still do'n't have their act together. Amtrak's once-heralded Acela express in the heavily-travelled Northeast corridor was stopped dead in its tracks, the result of poor design and planning.

News analysis runs alarming stories with screamers like "Transit shortcomings put more cars on the bridge": "Improvements such as the extension of Caltrain into downtown, the construction of the Third Street light-rail system, reconstruction of the decrepit Transbay Terminal and a Chinatown subway are touted to dramatically improve downtown transit interchanges. A major ferry system expansion is in the works, and BART has plans to ramp up service in the long term." -- all of these projects have faced severe delays, with planning, funding, and execution. BART service changes? Doubtful. BART service area expansion? Unlikely, considering that one of that project's strongest advocates was pushed out last week.

American needs efficient rail service. The service should be urban and rural, although the need is greatest for intra- and inter-urban routes. American legislature does not feel pressure from lobbyists, most of whom are grassroots rather than industry, and for this reason under-funds and hamstrings the national and civic rail infrastructure. As recent experience in Britain, which privatised its rail service to the frustration of most, has shown, rail must be run as a loss-leader of sorts: in order to save money in the long term, investments in rail must be taken now. Failing to make this commitment now will result in higher long-term costs for development, for highway infrastructure, and less-efficient commute times for Americans in dense population areas.