Make some room for bikes on Cal­train

San Francisco Chronicle Late Edition - - OPINION -

I am com­mit­ted to us­ing Cal­train be­cause it’s green, re­lieves traf­fic on High­way 101, al­lows me to work en route and pro­vides daily ex­er­cise by bik­ing there. I rely on bike space on Cal­train to get to work ev­ery day be­cause I need to cy­cle from home to Cal­train and from Cal­train to work. I have to re­sort to driv­ing to make my first meet­ing on time when I am bumped, ob­vi­at­ing all the ben­e­fits de­scribed above.

We there­fore def­i­nitely need the pro­posed in­creased bike ca­pac­ity. I know of peo­ple whose bikes have been stolen off Cal­train. It is es­sen­tial that suf­fi­cient seats and stand­ing space be avail­able in each bike car. I hope Cal­train will con­sider con­sol­i­dat­ing bikes and seats into ded­i­cated car­riages to max­i­mize train use and de­crease cars on the roads and Cal­train park­ing lots.

Suzie Scales, San Ma­teo

Treat dog own­ers

Ac­cord­ing to “Bots with arf-of­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence?” (Daily Brief­ing, Jan. 11), a mov­ing treat dis­penser has been cre­ated to mo­ti­vate pets who have sepa­ra­tion anx­i­ety, obe­sity and de­pres­sion to chase it around. Well, don’t pet own­ers have many of these same is­sues, too?

Maybe a ro­bot should also be cre­ated for hu­mans to chase, which also con­tains treats. It could be­come a game called Candy Rush.

Jeremy Davidoff, No­vato

Core cus­tomers

Con­cern­ing “Five rea­sons Tim Cook’s Ap­ple legacy is on the line” (Busi­ness, Jan. 8): The big­gest rea­son Ap­ple is start­ing to rot is be­cause of how it is treat­ing its core base of long­time Amer­i­can cus­tomers. Why is Ap­ple re­ly­ing on China to boost its sales in­stead of of­fer­ing more rea­son­ably priced iPhones in the U.S. mar­ket?

No one should spend more for a smart­phone than for (as this ar­ti­cle notes) a re­frig­er­a­tor. While my iPhone 6S doesn’t have all the fea­tures of the lat­est ver­sion, I’m per­fectly happy with it and plan to keep it as long as pos­si­ble. The new iPhones are sim­ply too ex­pen­sive. Ra­neesh Pa­tel, Foster City

Cum­ber­some name

Re­gard­ing “Name that ball­park — for a price” (Let­ters, Jan. 11): The let­ter writer ac­cu­rately hits the prob­lem and so­lu­tion on the head, but the sug­gested name for the San Francisco Giants’ sta­dium is a bit cum­ber­some. “‘Your Name Here’ Park” fits bet­ter on a hat.

Tim Cur­ley, Sonoma

Party dif­fer­ences

Re­gard­ing “Trump is chang­ing the Demo­cratic Party” (Opin­ion, Jan. 11): As a proud union mem­ber, I re­sent An­drew Mal­colm’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of Democrats in his lat­est col­umn as a “mot­ley col­lec­tion” of groups with com­pet­ing self-in­ter­ests, in­clud­ing African Amer­i­cans, union mem­bers and gov­ern­ment work­ers. Un­like the GOP, the Democrats are a party of in­clu­sion. They be­lieve in so­cioe­co­nomic jus­tice and equal­ity for peo­ple from all walks of so­ci­ety. Mean­while, the Repub­li­cans un­der Pres­i­dent Trump are a party that caters to the af­flu­ent and cor­po­ra­tions.

They have shame­fully scape­goated im­mi­grants so that work­ing-class white cit­i­zens can feel su­pe­rior to an­other group. Dur­ing this long gov­ern­ment shut­down, Trump has shown lit­tle con­cern for the hun­dreds of thou­sands of gov­ern­ment work­ers who are not get­ting paid, claim­ing most of them are Democrats, any­way. In­stead of mak­ing de­ci­sions on be­half of all cit­i­zens, Trump and the GOP are only in­ter­ested in ap­peal­ing to their na­tivist sup­port­ers.

Eleanor Fis­chbein, Alameda

Jack Ohman / Sacra­mento Bee

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.