> I do not think that would work - the charge for the toll is just not enough to really incentivize carpooling on its own.

I guess if I'm honest I think the whole scheme is a silly way of getting people to share vehicles. Really we should probably just take the carpool lanes and make them exclusively usable by buses during rush hour and actually build out that form of transportation.

Buses and trains are far better shared vehicles.

If we spent half as much money on better public transit in that corridor as we do adding lanes and building this ridiculous toll system, we might have something functional enough that a lot more people would use it.

Have you ever been on 101? This seems like a really out of touch comment in relation to 101 itself.

Your website says you don’t live in the US and you did your education in NYC - so I feel like you might be really unaware of how this road operates and how many of these others operate…

> Have you ever been on 101? This seems like a really out of touch comment in relation to 101 itself. > Your website says you don’t live in the US and you did your education in NYC - so I feel like you might be really unaware of how this road operates and how many of these others operate…

I grew up in southern California and did my undergrad in the Bay Area. I've probably put around 100k miles of driving in California with myself behind the wheel and that includes the fact that I have been mostly been living outside California for more than a decade. Last time I drove through the Bay Area was a couple months back and I did in fact drive on the 101.

Then why would you advocate for busses in the land of suburbia knowing that is one of the least efficient forms of transport for suburbia? Busses are great within cities and places that have optimized their topology and layouts for them and for super commutes. They absolutely suck for getting you from random parts of SF to say emerald hills.

Buses in suburban Sweden aren't really that bad. In fact I've been experimenting with using buses in San Diego more and more and the main drawbacks are (1) low volume of buses and (2) buses sitting in traffic in rush hour. The first can be solved by putting more buses on the road and the second can be solved by giving buses priority in traffic. Even with these shortcomings, buses in San Diego seem much worse in many people's imagination than they truly are.

I'm not saying that my beliefs here are right, but I would recommend you consider the possibility that yours are wrong.

Are you going within San Diego itself or outside San Diego? Cause Bay Area is pretty large and people aren't usually commuting 5 miles from their houses or something.

Honestly I don't know if that's the answer.

Buses on highways tend to either have horrible bus stations in the median, which are often far from where you want to be and are incredibly noisy and riddled with pollution.

Or they have to go off the highway which requires either very expensive exclusive off-ramps, otherwise they get stuck behind all the other traffic on the highway which defeats the purpose.

I unfortunately think that 101 traffic in the bay area is pretty unsolvable. The main silicon valley area is incredibly low density and virtually unwalkable given the masses of parking lots.

I think the best option is to massively increase density next to Caltrain stations (which is starting to happen) and basically move all the development next to the train, rather than trying to build transit to the existing development.

Maybe new lines could be built on BART etc to make new corridors, paid for by big taxes from existing "sprawl" office developments far from transit to make them unattractive compared to higher density ones near train service.

It's frankly ridiculous that Apple Park was allowed to be built in its current form, for example. It's 3mi from Caltrain, has a ridiculous requirement for parking and is terrible land use wise (though it does look cool). It could have easily been a tower nearer transit, if it wasn't for NIBMYism.

>It could have easily been a tower nearer transit, if it wasn't for NIBMYism.

i don't think it's really fair to blame the NIMBYs for that one. a sprawling, campus surrounded by a big buffer to keep it separate from the community is clearly what Apple wanted, not just what the city of Cupertino wanted. If they wanted to build something with more density and transit links that was integrated into the community, they could have.

If they could get rid of the level-crossings so that the caltrain doesnt have to constantly honk it's horn, then I'd consider living near a caltrain station.