|
The traffic in the Greater Bay Area is so bad, the effect of chokepoints so profound, and the geographic concentration of jobs is so strong, that the Park-and-Ride model actually works there, and isn't just wishful thinking. This means that the exact placement of stations in the exurbs is much less relevant. The viability of P+R makes the Benicia station worthwhile to pursue, despite the challenging site. It's clear that transit-oriented development won't happen there, but in terms of transportation geography, it's a chokepoint at the Solano side of one of the few crossings of the Strait. The newly-opened Travis station is as close to the base as they could've cheaply made it, being completely greenfield and not clashing with any existing land use. If the base really wanted to, they could arrange a traffic-avoiding shuttle between the station and the base, through a new, dedicated northwest gate. But it's worth remembering that any threat Travis makes about encroachment is likely tough talk to keep the neighboring towns from getting too clever, because Travis encroaches just as well on itself: half of the base is housing, there's elementary schools... I admire the author's passion: I'm the same way, poring over GIS and aerial photos, reading draft plans, EIS documents, and public comments. But the author perhaps overestimates the county's appetite for well-placed rail stations next to which a higher density of construction becomes worthwhile. Just look at the Suisun-Fairfield station, which is nearly as well-placed as the one in Davis. If a midrange suburban hotel, a two-story office building, some offramps, and some underutilized public space the most the two cities can offer for this key gateway, what hope is there for a site where Vacaville's sprawl gives way to farms on its eastern edge? |