"Green development" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. "Green" development is not at all "green", but, rather, is yet another way that good-hearted people can be fooled into supporting plans made by greedy billionaires to continue to overbuild the Peninsula.

Too much of the Peninsula is already choked with traffic for too much of the day. Yet more growth will result in more gridlock. The fact of the matter is that we're full, and cannot handle any more people.

The very fact that our economy is based on constant growth is extremely sad. Such constant growth is only seen in nature in cancer cells. Do we really think it is a good idea to support an economy that is modeled on a deadly disease?

Just ask yourself: "Cui bono?" Who benefits financially from all this development? Follow the money and you will find the answer.

In any case, such growth requires a vast and reliable supply of fresh water -- which we all know is now in very short supply, because of the drought, which is not likely to end any time soon. So -- why make plans that are based on refusing to face the hard fact that there is not enough water for more growth?

And any plans to deal with the horrid jobs-housing imbalance by only trying to "make the commute bearable" are very short-sighted and cruel. Make the commute "bearable" be eliminating it, or making it very short. Why should we continue to expect the poor to bear the brunt of such ridiculously long commutes? Why not eliminate the need for those long commutes by rebuilding our communities so that peoples of all ages and incomes and ethnicities can live together? Harmoniously, I hope!

(Making ECR "strollable" would currently only benefit the wealthy -- not the poor.)

Bicycling is not at all practical for those who have more than a relatively short commute, or who have children to pick up after work. And it is not really much fun in the rain and wind and cold and dark. It is also extremely unsafe for the bicyclists when bikes and cars and trucks and buses must share the same roads. Bicyclists are almost always very hard to see, as they are a lot smaller than cars and trucks and buses. And making bicyclists ride on sidewalks is very dangerous for pedestrians. It seems to me that there is really no place in our present infrastructure for bicyclists.

And Bus Rapid Transit ("BRT") is also not practical at all when those buses are allowed to monopolize lanes on on extremely crowded roads such as El Camino Real. Those buses would be very unlikely to be able to attract many riders -- just because they do not and cannot have private rights of way in the same way that trains have, so they will get stuck in traffic -- unlike Caltrain. And every dollar that is spent on BRT here on the Peninsula is a dollar that cannot be spent on making Caltrain better.

Yes, all of the Bay Area's transit agencies really should be under one management -- IF that management is really good and composed only of dedicated and well-trained and well-paid public servants. And of course all their schedules should be planned to connect well with each other, and fares should be as simple as possible.

Paul -- I am glad you care so much about public transit, and are working to try to make it better for everyone.

Good article. I have pointed out to people that commuting from San Francisco to Supertion or even Los Gatos takes time. I took a train once from London to Manchester in less time the San Fransico to Los Gatos journey.

Commuting from the Central Valley to Palo Alto is nil expect by car.

Green development is not all high rises but having the options of not having to commute by car. Lived in England saw really cool single family home density with nearby shopping and green space close to rail lines.

The face of the matter we live in a single story world where you will find most of the buildings 1 story. Drive around and count the amount of large single story buildings with large parking lots.

Most transit stops drop you off at the sidewalk but then you got to walk across the vast sea of cars, landscaping and large single story business parks

The idea of removing lanes from El Camino to better serve buses and bikes is a very selfish one, because a vast majority of the users of that road are in cars, and would prefer to remain so. Cars are simply a much better transportation choice for 99%+ of people.

Is switching from BART to Muni that confusing? You leave one turnstile and go into another, all with the same clipper card. It's hardly "several".

BART and Muni are only 2 of many transit districts serveing the Bay Area. When the BART extension is completed you still have to get people from Eastside of the valley to the Westside

Louise:

those awful developers probably built your house or at the very least your neighborhood. It was ok for them to develop your neighborhood, but not others? Seems rather hypocritical to me.