Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak
It also moves more trains, twice as many people, allows for fewer track repairs, new High Speed Rail trains, and finally the ability to enter downtown San Francisco underground. It is an outstanding deal.
|
Let's just say "it" is a controversial deal (I assume "it" is the TransBay Terminal--the reference isn't 100% clear).
It's there now. Much of the money is spent. But when it was still just a proposal I argued the city's business district was moving south and would engulf the existing terminal at 4th & Townsend while, simultaneously, new transit (the T-Third and Central Subway) was being built to conveniently get people from the old financial district to the existing terminal. I argued we'd get a lot more bang for the buck by building a new terminal at 4th & Townsend and spending the additional money saved on making the planned transit improvements even better (say platforms on the Central Subway allowing longer trains and/or extending that at least to North Beach) to make it even more convenient for more people to get to the new terminal.
But the city didn't go that way. Why not I'm still not sure. It astounded me then and now that the TransBay District Board, with the generally anti-development Chris Daly on it, went for the grandest new scheme. But they did. And while I remain concerned the Terminal building could become a maintenance and safety nightmare and a homeless magnet--and seem rather empty much of the time--I love the new towers that we probably wouldn't have but for the need to pay for the terminal.
Threaded Mode