Landuse and transit

Why not make the tough landuse decisions and fund the infrastructure so that it will be successful? Large transit projects need to be able to control density and retail on the corridor and prevent autos from gumming up the works with free parking, and clogged traffic lanes that delay buses and make grade separation costly. Europe and Japan are able to do this successfully. But we don't emulate them because our best government that money can buy was owned by Detroit.

Times have changed. Writing in the LA Times on the financial meltdown Rosa Brooks observes: As you know, some outside intervention in your economy is overdue. Last week -- even before Wall Street's latest collapse -- 13 former finance ministers convened at the University of Virginia and agreed that you must fix your "broken financial system." Australia's Peter Costello noted that lately you've been "exporting instability" in world markets, and Yashwant Sinha, former finance minister of India, concluded, "The time has come. The U.S. should accept some monitoring by the IMF."

The Clinton Climate Initiative/C40 “Best Practice” transport profiles San Francisco as A world-leading low emissions transport system with zero-emission vehicles because more than half of the city’s Municipal Railway (MUNI) fleet, consisting of buses and light rail, is comprised of zero-emission vehicles. Other profiles include ciclovias in Bogota and BRT systems around the world. Implementing an electric bus/bike shoulder lane on El Camino would give us the best of these profiles at a fraction of the cost going into hydrogen buses, smart corridors, Ralston/101 style freeway expansion, freeway slip lanes and expensive rail enhancements.