Central Subway gravy train shows how City Hall works

Board President David Chiu (center, at a Central Subway rally last year) and Mayor Ed Lee are supporters of the project.

Despite its skyrocketing cost, inefficient design, and a growing chorus of criticism – ranging from a Wall Street Journal editorial today to an op-ed in the SF Chronicle last week – the Central Subway project continues to move forward for one simple reason: rich and powerful people want it to happen, whether it makes sense or not, because it benefits them directly.

“The subway is a case study in government incompetence and wasted taxpayer money,” the Wall Street Journal wrote in a “Review & Outlook” piece today (full text below), but it was only partially correct. The Central Subway is actually a case study in how things get done at City Hall, and how connected contractors and their political patrons make off with that taxpayer money.

“San Francisco is embarking on a Big Dig of the West, and unless our local leadership applies the brakes soon, the damage to our transit systems will be all but guaranteed. I urge local and national leaders to recognize what is obvious and stop this train to nowhere,” former San Francisco Transportation Agency Chair Jake McGoldrick wrote in his Aug. 18 op-ed.

But that isn't likely to happen, given the political dynamics that have taken root at City Hall this year. Remember, this project was the result of a mutually beneficial deal that then-Mayor Willie Brown cut with Chinatown power broker Rose Pak back in 2003 (when the project was estimated at $648 million, before it ballooned to its current price tag of $1.6 billion).

This was the same duo that engineered the appointment of Ed Lee as interim mayor earlier this year and then pushed him to break his word and run to retain control of Room 200, as well as pressuring David Chiu into being the swing vote to give Lee that job and secretly backing Jane Kim's run for the Board of Supervisors. All are big supporters of the Central Subway project, despite all the experts calling it an wasteful boondoggle that will be the most expensive 1.7-mile piece of track ever built in this country.

But the opinion of fiscal and transportation policy experts matters little in a town that is once again being governed by shameless power brokers. Hell, Brown even uses his weekly column in the Chronicle to confirm his weekly breakfast date (every Monday at the St. Regis Hotel) with his “friend” and client Jack Baylis, a top executive at AECOM, the main contractor for the Central Subway, as well as the America's Cup, Transbay Terminal, the rebuild of the city's sewer system, and all the other most lucrative city contracts.

In turn, AECOM kicks down contracts and payouts to a network of political supporters that will ensure that the project gets built, such as Chinatown Community Development Center, which signed an $810,000 contract in December to support the Central Subway in unspecified ways right before CCDC and its director Gordon Chin provided crucial support for getting Lee into the Mayor's Office, where he can ensure the Central Subway project remains on track.

Yes, it's just that crass and obvious. And it isn't even about politics. Hell, Baylis is a Republican from Los Angeles, despite his meddling in San Francisco's political affairs by sponsoring the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth and other groups that will be doing independent expenditures on behalf of Lee this fall, trying to tell us that “it's all about civility.”

No, it's about money and it's about power, straight up. The Central Subway is really more of a gravy train than a sensible transit project, but that's just how business is being done at City Hall these days.

One of the people who has long criticized the project – noting how Chinatown would be served far better with surface transit options, at a fraction of the cost – is Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City and an elected BART board member. He was heartened to see so many more voices – from the editorials to a recent Civil Grand Jury report to internal audits in the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which will lose money operating the new system – echoing his concerns.

“There are more people who seem to be sharing my thoughts,” Radulovich said. “It would be good to have a civic debate on this.”

But he's not confident that will happen, despite the fresh wave of concerns. “There's a lot of stuff that looks like planning that has gone into justifying this,” he said. “When the political culture of City Hall and the planning culture come together, this is what you get.”


Full text of WSJ article:

Off the San Francisco Rails

Tony Bennett may have left his heart in San Francisco, but the politicians who contrived the city's Chinatown subway project must have left their brains somewhere else. The subway is a case study in government incompetence and wasted taxpayer money.

P.S. The Obama Administration is all for it.

Former Mayor Willie Brown sold a half-cent sales tax hike to voters in 2003 to pay for the 1.7-mile line on the pretext that the subway would ease congestion on Chinatown's crowded buses, but he was more interested in obtaining the political support of Chinatown's power brokers. In 2003, the city estimated the line would cost $647 million, but the latest prediction is $1.6 billion, or nearly $100 million for each tenth of a mile.

Transportation experts say the subway's design is seriously flawed and that improving the existing bus and light-rail service would make more sense. The subway misses connections with 25 of the 30 light-rail and bus lines that it crosses, and there's no direct connection to the 104-mile Bay Area Rapid Transit line or to the ferry.

Commuters will have to travel eight stories underground to catch the train and walk nearly a quarter of a mile to connect to the Market Street light-rail lines—after riding the subway for only a half mile. Tom Rubin, the former treasurer-controller of Southern California Rapid Transit District, calculates that taking the bus would be five to 10 minutes faster along every segment.

The city's metro system, which is already running $150 million operating deficits, isn't likely to have the money to keep the subway running in any case. Last month the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, a watchdog group, warned that the subway's costs "could stretch the existing maintenance environment [of the metro system] to the breaking point" and will defer the purchase of a new communications system.

Alas, San Francisco will likely drag national taxpayer money into the bay too. The city has applied for a multiyear $942 million "full funding grant agreement" from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to cover 60% of its capital costs. In 1964 Congress created a back-door earmark program called "New Starts" to subsidize local transportation projects. The FTA rates and recommends projects for grants, and Congress usually rubber-stamps its recommendations.

In January 2010, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood modified the grant criteria by adding environmental and communal benefits and minimizing cost-effectiveness. The change effectively means that any project can get federal funding as long as its sponsors claim they're moving cars off the road.

"Measuring only cost and how fast a project can move the most people the greatest distance simply misses the boat," Mr. LaHood wrote in January 2010 on his Fast Lane blog. "Look, everywhere I go, people tell me they want better transportation in their communities. They want the opportunity to leave their cars behind . . . And to enjoy clean, green neighborhoods. The old way of doing things just doesn't value what people want." We're told Mr. LaHood is smarter than he sounds.

The FTA has given the Chinatown subway one of its highest project ratings, which virtually assures a full funding grant agreement. Once the city receives such an agreement, the feds are obligated to provide whatever funds they promise. The FTA won't approve the agreements until the fall, so there's still hope that someone wises up and nixes the project. Oh, and if Congress is looking for discretionary programs to cut, New Starts would be a good start.


Nobody thinks that BART or the sub-Market St. streetcar lines should never have been built, even if they over-ran their budgets and schedules. In a city where driving is becoming little more than a revenue source for the city, where cycling is a dice with death, and where the buses are filthy, dangerous and unreliable, BART and the subway systems remain the transit standard of choice. (We can only dream of a decent cab system).

And note also that almost all the funding for CS is from the State or the Feds. SF has to outlay relatively little for this infrastructural investment. And if SF cancelled it tomorrow, all that capital largesse would go to some other City.

Once this is built, we'll use it just like we use the Market St. trains and be glad of it We're building for 100 years here, and not for the feathering of any individual ego. Steve, let's take all this money and build it. There is little question that it will be fully utilized once operational. And then we can plan the next extension of subterrean transit - surely the way of the future.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 6:13 pm

He sounds exactly like, and shares the opinions of, several other one name posters who each disappear when a new one begins to champion conservative causes, defend Ed Lee and PG&E, and so on.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

"sub-Market St. streetcar lines?" WHAT???

FYI: The rail system in San Francisco is called the Muni metro. Here's a map of the system:


The metro has been around since the early 1980s, and some people still don't know what it's called? Sigh.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

I'll take your petty semantic nitpicking as an indicator of your inability to refute my substantive points.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

I meant to add that I think this Muni metro T-line extension (a.k.a. "The Central Subway"...why the hell is it called that?) is an excellent idea, BUT not the way it's going to be done.

As with other metro systems, the T-line extension should connect with the Powell Street Muni metro station. Anyone ever been to the District of Columbia and ridden their metro and been to the Metro Center stop. It has multiple levels where the trains connect from different colored lines/routes so people can transfer to other lines on the system)....the way it does in other cities. But no, our Muni metro extension station is going to have a station a block away requiring people to walk, not even connecting with the current Muni metro. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Whoever came up with this idea has never ridden a metro system, knows nothing about them and/or clearly had their head in their upper colon while having a diarrhea when they came up with this idea. What a mess!

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

sub-terrean streetcars that work pretty well, and where they operate overground, where they are ponderously slow.

But actually, I agree with you. SF needs a world-class subway system like almost every major world city has. Fat chance.

And for all my support for CS, it isn't really what we need. It's simply all we can get and is better than nothing.

What we really need is BART extensions to North Beach and under Geary to the ocean. But none of us will live long enough.

So I'll take the CS over zip. Why not?

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

Because of it's outrageously bad design? Because it loses so much money it will bankrupt Muni?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 10:15 am

i've got news for you buddy, muni is already bankrupt.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 1:19 am

It also bears repeating that if the plan goes forward as is, and all T-Line trains are then shifted to end in the new route extension, then all of African Americans who have formerly ridden the T and disembarked freely up and down the central train spine of Market Street with its many stops and connections, will instead only be able to ride to a dead end in Chinatown with no easy connections to the rest of the train system whatsoever.

This is an absolutely outrageous throwback to the redevelopment era ultra-racist policies, and we must demand that this stupid new subway at least stop directly at Powell and/or Montgomery stations.

It would be -really- helpful to this whole debate if the SF Guardian would do a story expanding on this incredibly racist aspect of the project.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 9:04 am

Eric. I mean no disrespect to you whatsoever, but you're a straight, white guy who doesn't live in the southeast. I appreciate your bringing up the issue of 'racism' (even though I think that's a bullshit argument), but do you really think you're the best person to talk about this?

And you want the Guardian to do a hard-hitting piece on how racist this is? Huh???

The Guardian hasn't had any African-American news reporters in (at least) over a decade. Are they the ones who should be reporting an angle of 'racism' against a central subway project that will connect Chinatown with a large Chinese-American community in the southeast?

Don't you get how disempowering and demeaning it is for you to be dictating that? Probably not, since you're a straight, white guy. (Yes, bringing up race in this context is a valid point, I think).

Please. Save something else, okay? We can speak for ourselves.


Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 9:20 am

Doesn't look like real estate in Chinatown is for sale to African Americans?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 10:17 am

I see. So African Americans who now make up less than 6% of the population in San Francisco, have a -massive- racist infrastructure bent totally against them, and are even regularly being shot and killed by the cops, can get by -just- fine without any help from anyone else...

Wake the hell up man.

My comments don't come from anywhere -near- white privilege. This is about bringing up a crucial issue that no one is addressing, including yourself, in the latter case because you are apparently too arrogant to recognize a blatant reality staring you right in the face.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 10:57 pm

Eric, I am not as unaware as you may think. Yep, I know the community is suffering--I just don't think it's in any way linked to the central subway construction, as you were making the case.

I also don't think that a white guy calling the central subway project 'racist' is helpful. And asking the Bay Guardian--which has had an all-white reporting staff for many, many years--to investigate the 'racism' of the central subway project is misguided.

Yes, when a straight, white guy spouts off the way you did, it does smack of white privilege. Seriously. I hope you will think about it, and be more sensitive with your language. It's not cool, and it's not progressive.

We can take care of ourselves just fine. We don't need you to be our advocate.

Oh, and by the way, all the Chinese groups (like...all of them) that have been fighting for Central Subway for decades probably don't see this project as 'racist'.

I'm just sayin.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 7:49 am

Any extension of transit that does not affirmatively serve non-whites more than whites could be criticized in this way. If we followed Eric's logic, we'd only ever build new transit in poor neighborhoods.

But the biggest need for transit is in economically active areas. So if you're going to take Eric's PC criteria for building transit, then route decisions will be forever skewed and inappropriate..

That's clearly unworkable. I think here that Eric doesn't like CS for other reasons, and is simply playing the race card because he thinks that places him beyond criticism.

The real reason CS is being built is because currently all our rail transit in the city runs East-West. We don't have a system, we have a line. CS addresses that structural flaw.

And as I pointed out earlier, CS will connect with the Market St. trains via the Union Square interchange.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 8:35 am
Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 10:20 am

Paul, you are clearly not even paying attention, and don't know the issue.

The point is that people of color and low income residents, who currently use the T-Third line from the Southeast will -lose- a huge amount of access that they -currently- have in the configuration of the T route.

And that bullshit Union square stop which requires a huge journey on foot to reach Powell station is absolutely not the same as simply placing the new stops directly at both Montgomery and Powell.

Finally, as I stated before, the new configuration will -also- deny a lot of working class Asians living and working in Chinatown direct connections to the Market Street stations.

Chinatown residents and workers should be pissed about that as well.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:47 am

investment in Muni. So what you're really complaining about is that, having spent all that money to connect BayView (a place NOBODY in the rest of the city ever visits), we now have to spend even more money on that obscure corner of the city and never allow their rresidents to be even slightly inconvenienced for no other reason than their skin color?

If you think that skin color is the primary determinant of transit policy, then why not come right out and say so?

Oh, and the CS connects to Powell via the Union Square interchange.

Oh, and when was the last time you spent a day in Bayview or Hunter's Point? Or West Oakland or Detroit or St. Louis or Memphis?

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

Actually, I go to the Bayview frequently, and have regularly worked in solidarity with Bayview organizers to fight against both polluting power plants, and Lennar corporation's toxic gentrification projects there.

I have in fact clocked thousands of work hours on those environmental and housing justice struggles.

I see that your contribution on the other hand, to the race and class justice struggle, has been to sit on your ass typing on blogs, to trash both immigrants, and the Bayview itself.

You are indeed an elitist, and a racist.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

Come on man.

Think back to the Freedom Rides and civil rights movement. South Africa.

Remember Howard Zinn, John Brown, and others like him. (And if you don't know of them, read up on them.)

The contention that it is counterproductive for white people stand up and publicly speak out against racism is both absurd and foolish.

Without a great many white people joining, and even sometimes leading, parts of the struggle over the last 500 years against racism, that struggle would simply not have advanced.

Asserting that African Americans "..can take care of ourselves just fine." is like asserting that the Palestinians can defend themselves 'just fine' and that therefore Jews opposed to the occupation should just sit down and shut up. That of course would be equally absurd.

Your absolutist, separatist view, toward organizing for equality for people of color was not shared by even Malcolm X toward the end of his life.

He made that crucial evolution in perspective.

You should as well.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:38 am

That's a stunning analogy even by your own distorted standards

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:45 am

Does not the proposed reroute of the T-Line completely segregate Southeast transit riders from all but one of the market street stops, where currently they have access?

This country has a long and infamous history of transit segregation.

You might recall Rosa Parks by chance?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:31 pm

Market St. muni stop, it does so only by taking a circuitous route along the waterfront.

So the travel time to those stops will not be much different than the current ponderous route.

While direct access will be improved to the ballpark, ferry building and fisherman's wharf.

Analogies with segregation and Rosa Parks are ridiculous and you know it. We've just spent hundreds of millions given the almost-never-visited SE corner of the city a state of the art streetcar. Only you would gripe that that isn't enough, and that all transit decisions have to be race-based.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:39 pm


Eric displays this quite well.It's also pretty profoundly effed up that he feels that without white people, the struggle over racism would not have advanced.
Without white people, we may not have needed the struggle against racism.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:59 am

to avoid trying to appear "holier than thou" or precious on the subject of race, given that that party's membership is whiter than a Tea Party rally in Idaho.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:22 pm

My remarks are my own. If I were representing the SF Green Party in them I would specifically and clearly say so.

And in any case you are incorrect.

Neither the SF Green Party County Council nor the active general membership is all white.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

Okay, Eric. I understand that you don't/won't get it. Typical white privilege. And when it's pointed out, we're the ones being unfair to the white guy.

Got it. I won't waste my time trying to be decent, and pointing something out how you might be acting in an insensitive way. Clearly, you don't care.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:45 pm

I find nothing -decent- about demonizing white people for seeking to call attention to racism.

We win by doing whatever works. Not by sniping at eachother instead of fighting our mutual enemy, right?

That is -exactly- what the elite wants; for you and I to fight eachother, instead of him.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

as to where the smoking gun on this is.

The memo that outlines your views, or minutes to a meeting where your views are discussed and the plans are laid out by the people who designed this.

Anything that proves that the system was designed to do what you say it does for the purposes you say it does.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 9:27 am

Come on man. It's obvious. Look at a Muni map.

Right now, the T-Line goes all the way up and down Market Street connecting with all of its stops.

After the Chinatown extension, the T-Line will connect with NONE of those stops.

What about this simple fact do you not understand?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 11:03 pm

there will be an underground walkway connecting it to the existing Powell station. It's a formal interchange with no need to exit the turnstiles.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 7:15 am

The Union Square stop is total bs, and requires a huge walk to get to Market Street (among other impacts, heavily disadvantaging disabled access).

That fig leaf stop does not by any stretch of the imagination make up for the total loss of Bayview/Sunnydale access to the entire Market Street rail transit spine.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:52 am

I walk from Powell to Union Square all the time. It takes maybe 7 minutes. And it would be much quicker than that except for the sidewalk crowd, that won't exist on the clear, bright, airy, direct underground walkway that will easily connect the two.

Eric, can you describe the volunteer activities and charitable donations you have made in the last year to directly help this city's black population?

Or does being an internet warrior count as that?

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

I already did.

In my response to you titled:

"Been To The Bayview Many Times - Power Plant & Lennar Fights"

Here it is again:

Been To The Bayview Many Times - Power Plant & Lennar Fights

Actually, I go to the Bayview frequently, and have regularly worked in solidarity with Bayview organizers to fight against both polluting power plants, and Lennar corporation's toxic gentrification projects there.

I have in fact clocked thousands of work hours on those environmental and housing justice struggles.

I see that your contribution on the other hand, to the race and class justice struggle, has been to sit on your ass typing on blogs, to trash both immigrants, and the Bayview itself.

You are indeed an elitist, and a racist.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

What you don't know about Muni could fit in a warehouse. or the central subway.

please, get off the computer, and go do something useful. furious blog commenting doesn't make you an activist of any sort, just another dork leftist who is useless and talks a lot but says little of importance, and does NOTHING of relevance.

STFU and get a job, loser.

Posted by Bogus The Bogarting Bogusmeister on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

"What you don't know about"=nontopic personal attack Troll Alert

Posted by vigilante on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

“There's a lot of stuff that looks like planning that has gone into justifying this”---love it.
The Central Corridor Project is budgeted and staffed, courtesy of the gravy train. The highest and best use...for some.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

They will tell you that people don't like to takes buses, which almost universally have negative associations, and that trains and subways are always better options.

PC-shills like Steven don't like to hear that but it's the truth. Looking at it from that perspective the Central Subway is a good idea and will gain additional users who would never, not in a million years, think of boarding "alternative surface transportation" like express buses.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

supposedly pro-transit liberals in this City actually reserve special venom for BART and the Central Subway.

I suppose they feel more comfortable with buses that break down, are filthy and often dangerous.

Then again, some people are never happy, and misery loves company.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

What San Francisco should be doing is looking at the huge success of streetcars in places like Seattle and Portland. They're not running more "express buses." They're building streetcars which people love to ride.

Personally I wish BART were extended all over the city and down the Peninsula as well. I'd never set food on a bus but I'd happily ride BART anytime.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

we can do right now.

And the fact that it's almost all paid for by Federal and State money means it's really a "use it or lose it situation".

The fact that a few prominent Asians support it is not a reason to not build it (which seems to be the SFBG line).

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

Availability of other taxpayer's money is not a reason for wasteful stupid projects.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 7:19 am

Actually, Paul, part of the argument against the CS is that it will cost the city quite a bit of money, in capital costs but even moreso in operating costs, where it will exacerbate the MTA's current budget deficit and make the rest of the system worse. I'm not against subways, and I tend to agree with Ms. Snapples that most people prefer trains over buses, including me. But the issue is how this project fares under a cost-benefit analysis, and I've talked to lots of very smart transportation planners who think this is a terrible waste of resources that are desperately needed elsewhere.

Posted by steven on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 8:06 am

Oh, and one more thing, I and most other "big-city liberals" love the BART system, which the Guardian supported since its inception. The only issues we have with it are its underregulated and trigger-happy police force and its unconstitutional belief that free speech rights don't apply once you pass the fare gates. I'd also like to see better late-night service, but BART officials say that's a resource issue, particulalry now that its state funding has been reduced. So, no, state and federal money isn't free, just ask any UC or CSU student.

Posted by steven on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 8:12 am

Plus does anyone really think both building and operating costs have not been underestimated?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 10:22 am

Actually, I just moved here from Seattle - people in Seattle *universally hate* the streetcars. They are slow - slower than equivalent buses. The huge capital cost also means there are fewer vehicles - so less frequency.

Seattle's first streetcar line - the South Lake Union Streetcar (otherwise known as the SLUT) is reviled by both people who ride and people who do not, for entirely separate reasons.

I used to work in South Lake Union and took the streetcar to work - or rather, took it to work less than half the time, since its slowness and infrequency meant that most of the time it was faster to walk. Beyond that though, the entire experience is one of mindnumbing stupidity as you wonder why this whole thing couldn't have been done with trolley buses for way less money and infrastructure.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 2:54 am

We are pro transit and if you read the article the central subway will cost so much to operate it will likely bankrupt the entire transit system.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 10:19 am

A scam from start to finish. A billion dollars for nothing. Oh, but they claim it's all "free money" from the state and the feds. And the state is broke, and the feds are printing money out of nothing, faster than its value can sink (they hope).

The local government is corrupt for trying to suck in this money for a huge waste -- and the federal government is corrupt for funding it.

Surface level improvements, or even something innovative like an elevated Personal Rapid Transit line like what Heathrow just put in, would cost between a tenth and a hundredth as much, be done much sooner, and provide better service to the residents along the line.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

I was there a few weeks back and never saw anything like that, although the high-speed Paddington link was pretty sllick.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Right on - take a bus - yech - they're full of regular folks - such loosers - so embarrassing - why don't they take a cab - let's drive them out of the City.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

is SURE to gain your ideas (whatever they are, since your post focused on slandering and attacking people who prefer to ride BART and not proposing an answer to the problem) a HUGE amount of support.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 7:43 pm