home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky rec.railroad:9039 ba.transportation:2702
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!icarus.lbl.gov!b_nbca
- From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
- Newsgroups: rec.railroad,ba.transportation
- Subject: Re: SFO rail transit setback?
- Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:58:04 GMT
- Organization: lbl
- Lines: 29
- Distribution: ca
- Message-ID: <27525@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
- References: <1992Nov18.004238.24227@ntmtv> <1992Nov18.182856.3791@news.columbia.edu>
- Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154
- Keywords: Kopp SFO BART CalTrain
-
- In article <1992Nov18.182856.3791@news.columbia.edu>,
- brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan) writes:
- |> I've been following this SFO thread for a while (yes that "ca"
- |> distribution has reached the East Coast!). One thing puzzles me.
-
- Only one thing? We've got to try harder.... :)
-
- |> Why do voters in San Francisco alone get to decide anything about (a)
- |> an airport in San Mateo County and (b) use of regional transit funds?
- |> What's the deal? I'm guessing maybe the City owns the airport itself,
- |> but I still don't get it.
- |>
- |> --Joe Brennan
-
- You are right that the city owns the airport. As it turns out,
- the City and County of San Franciso (one entity) owns the airport,
- and in fact is the largest landowner in San Mateo county (maybe
- even more than San Mateo County itself owns--not sure).
-
- I'm speculating here, but suspect that it is airport $$, not regional
- transit $$, that the ballot measure would be about. It wouldn't
- require that BART go into the airport garage, but would prohibit
- the people mover being built. In principle, BART could not go to
- the airport garage AND no people-mover built.
-
- The whole thing might be funny if it wasn't so sad.
-
- Bruce Nordman
- B_Nordman@lbl.gov
-