"Trump Administration officials indicate that Americans should expect smaller portion sizes and lower quality food this Thanksgiving, consistent with the President's "Two Doll" economic theory of affordability."

Annual Resident Trips = 2,854,750
City Population = 1,400,000
Annual Trips per Resident = 2.0 trips
Average Vehicle Occupancy per Trip = 2.0 residents per car
Average Car Trips per resident = 1.0 cars
Average Balboa Park Visit = 4.0 hours
Hourly Parking Rate = $2.50
Resident Annual Cost = $10.00

They lowered the fare to 50 cents for three years.

Systemwide ridership is still not close to their peak ridership in 1985 when they had no rail service.

Talk to SANDAG. There is a process where they can provide GIS files to Google for them to update maps. contentpartners.maps.google.com/welcome?visi...

I see a 46-train schedule coming in the near future. Take a look at who is on their Board.

Should they have built a station here based on the community plan? Maybe not, but is does serve as a park-n-ride, which has some utility for the community. If SB 79 was in place, they definitely would not have put a station here.

✅ Physical inactivity

😅

I support dense housing near transit. But we need safeguards preventing cities from sabotaging transit service to avoid housing obligations. Otherwise, SB 79 risks becoming a Pyrrhic victory that harms both housing AND transit goals.

The perverse incentive: Local cities may prioritize avoiding SB 79 impacts over improving public transportation. We could see transit expansion slow just as California needs more ridership and many transit agencies face financial strain.

Transit capital projects already face enormous barriers: regulation, local opposition, funding gaps, and years-long approval processes. SB 79 adds another layer where agencies must weigh: “Will this new line trigger housing mandates that kill local support?”

SB 79’s intentions are admirable - it aims to address California’s housing shortage and increase transit ridership. Transit-oriented development IS crucial for climate goals and affordability. But implementation matters.

Even worse: existing commuter rail stations could face closure. If a city wants to avoid SB 79’s housing requirements, shutting down a station becomes a viable option. This would impact current transit customer while technically complying with the law.

I’ve already been asked/directed by cities to cut current and planned bus service levels to avoid the existing CEQA streamlining requirements. SB 79 applies to “major bus rapid transit (BRT) stops” - cities might downgrade service frequency or eliminate BRT designations to sidestep the law entirely.

There are all these militias that were supposedly organized to fight back the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government. They are actually a bunch of pussies that never really cared about the constitution.