Yesterday's Voice comment still holds. 'Viewed as a "game changer" by some,' OK. Yet strikingly little historical reflection occurs, especially in a proposal that could "be a game changer" back to a type of service used a century ago, and abandoned.

"A public-transit route connecting Peninsula to East Bay" exactly characterized the original 1910 Dumbarton Rail Bridge, linking US rail services to the peninsula's north-south line -- now Caltrain -- and thus to SF. Revolutionary ("a game changer") in its time, long before the Bay Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge.

In 1910, San Francisco had been for 60 years the major population center and port on North America's Pacific coast. The rail bridge connected the busy Port of SF with the "mainland" US by rail.

Had you predicted in 1910 that even local rail services (rapidly growing then) would be abandoned in the 1950s for private cars, you'd have been laughed at. Just as if in turn you'd predicted in the 1950s that private car commutes might later revert back to rail travel. The question today becomes, what changes considered clever right now will be laughed at 40 years in the future?

Consolidation not Increased "fragmentation". That's how my quant hatted head looks at this (other people's) problem. The posting above is right - envision the advantages of a consolidated past mass transportation system.

BRT can connect to the current HOV and developing HOV lane system. An electrified "CalTrain extension" can connect to the soon-to-exist electrified CalTrain system. The first has wildly adaptable inexpensive "stations" (bus stops) and totally adaptable 'last mile(s)' optional on-street routing. The later - fits in with the 'to-be' CalTrain successful system, but has limited 'last mile(s)' adaptability.

And to pay for it?