Laserfiche WebLink
overly congested during commute hours. <br />+4 1 the road to the harbor area cannot handle more traffic and there would not be parking <br />for all these commuters. <br />2 doesn't affect me at all in unclear why you would take instead of Caltrain baby bullet <br />+4 1 The speed of the service is not significantly faster than Caltrain (slower in fact than some <br />express trains), and the Port is nowhere near as accessible than the Caltrain station. The <br />Caltrain station is closer to the majority of the residential areas, is in downtown, and already <br />has significant transportation infrastructure with connecting buses and shuttles. I would <br />expect most people to continue using Caltrain instead of the ferry, were it developed. <br />+a 2 it all depends on the size of the ferry. It's difficult to imagine it being a sufficient size to <br />put a meaningful dent in traffic. It seems wiser to focus money on more proven methods like <br />improving/expanding rail service. <br />+2 1. An alternative means of transportation is always good. It may be further than the RWC <br />train station but ends closer to many jobs in SF so possibly a trade off there. <br />+2 1 should have happened years ago <br />+2 2. 1 can't think of a scenario in which I would choose this over other forms of <br />transportation to get to the city. I does not seem convenient or practical. <br />+z 1. 1 don't see this as being very valuable. Who's really going to use this? <br />+2 2 1 just don't see how a ferry is better, faster, cleaner, or cheaper than Caltrain. By 2017 <br />Caltrain will go all the way to the SF Financial District. I'm generally all for new infrastructure, <br />but boats and new ferry terminals are extremely expensive and must burn fossil fuels, <br />whereas soon Caltrain will be all -electric. <br />+1 1 who on earth would use this? <br />9 1 just means more taxes. <br />