SFPark is like an auction for parking spaces. When there are more people who want to park than there are parking spaces (demand > supply), you simply raise the price until enough people decide to go elsewhere that everyone who remains gets a parking space (so demand = supply).
And when you have fewer people who want to park there than there are parking spaces (demand < supply), you lower the price to make it more attractive and bring in customers to the nearby businesses (so demand = supply).
But if that equilibrium price (the price where demand = supply) is always $0 then there's no point in putting in meters at all.
For more information about the effect of price on demand, I recommend taking a beginning economics course at your local community college. Pay special attention when the topic is on the demand curve.
I never go to businesses where I have to pay to park the car.
Those businesses thank you for making a parking space available for people who don't expect to get everything for free.
Why not install meters on every spot on every road then?
Because the purpose is to keep a few open spaces on every block, and if a block always has open spaces, then the parking meters aren't necessary.
This is long distance travel...
And also commuter rail, for example from Millbrae to downtown San Francisco.
...that only well-off people will be able to afford...
They are planning to set the train fares at 83% of airfares.
...that will carry a small proportion of traffic on a route that is not congested anyway...
You obviously have never driven in or out of San Francisco or Los Angeles during rush hour!
...and is already well served by other mass transit options (airplanes, buses, Amtrak).
There's only one daily Amtrak train in each direction between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Otherwise you have to take a bus such as the California Shuttle Bus, or Amtrak Train + Amtrak Thruway bus.
And even the airlines don't think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.. The reason is because those short flights aren't profitable, and that's why wherever HSR is built, it always quickly gains market share from the airlines.
The high speed transfers are (planned to be) from the far ends of the commuter rail systems, far outside the heart of the city. They abandoned the plan to directly link the city centers to keep the cost under $100 Billion.
You're thinking of the Initial Operating Section, where you'll take a commuter train (Metrolink) from Union Station to Palmdale, then a bullet train to San Jose, then another commuter train (Caltrain) to the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. They just want to get something running quickly so the infrastructure doesn't sit idle.
Later, the plan for Phase 1 Blended (2029) is a one-seat ride from Union Station all the way to SF, but it will share tracks with commuter trains to Palmdale and again from San Jose to SF until they upgrade those sections in a later phase.
Because it's slower, much more expensive, and technologically backward.
Slower? Did you know that even bicycles are sometimes faster than jetliners?
More expensive? Then why has an airliner never built an airport while railroad companies have built railroads?
Technologically backward? Can you think of any mode of travel that's more fuel-efficient than electric trains (500+ passenger-MPGe)? I can, but it's a bicycle.
And airports can serve people who don't just want to go between LA and SF.
Can a single airline flight land at a couple dozen airports between LA and SF like a train can, and still be competitive on cost and time?
The cost of building equivalent capacity to the $68.4 billion bullet train is estimated to be $119.0 billion for 4,295 new lane-miles (6,912 km) of highway, plus $38.6 billion for 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways, for a total estimated cost of $158 billion (2.3x $68.4 billion).
So AK Marc's figures of $10 on mass transit vs. $20 on roads were a little on the conservative side.
The overrun is 50% so far!
No, it isn't. Didn't you read the article? It says that in the worst-case scenario, the overrun may be as much as 50% if they aren't careful.
In fact, the contracts awarded so far have cost lass than expected, so the project is actually under budget at this time.
Unfortunately, there will always be opponents like Jeff Dunham who will have none of it. In an effort to get the project canceled under the guise of potential cost overruns, they ironically (if not hypocritically) drive up legal costs and create the very problem they are trying to solve.
And this article about a draft risks analysis is just another scare piece. The author (Vartabedian) is well known for blowing any little risk out of proportion.
"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure