{"id":null,"ids":[],"kind":"named in documents","name":"San Francisco Bay Crossing","tied_by":"name","block":null,"release":"v0.7.1","rows_columns":["t","id","year","y","date","kind","topic","outcome","summary","tier","source","leaf","scan","addr","quote","note","title","how","g","rec","sc"],"rows":[["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:29/1",1947,1921,"1921","measure","study or report",null,"War Department policy 1921, San Francisco Bay crossing · approved: tunnel crossing the bay approved in any location, structure at least 50 feet below mean lower low water","unverified","C124921430",29,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n28",null,"That a tunnel crossing the bay will be approved in any location, provided the highest part of the structure is placed at least 50 feet below mean lower low water",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","m",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:29/2",1947,1921,"1921","measure","study or report",null,"War Department policy 1921, San Francisco Bay crossing · other: tunnel on San Francisco side kept unobstructed to 50 feet depth at mean lower low water for 3,000 feet width","unverified","C124921430",29,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n28",null,"provided that the tunnel is so placed as to leave the tunnel along the San Francisco side unobstructed to a depth of 50 feet at mean lower low",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","m",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed22sanfrich:116/2",1927,1927,"1927-01-17","resolution",null,"referred","Supervisor Havenner proposed a resolution to form a public bridge district for a San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed22sanfrich",116,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed22sanfrich/page/n116",null,"Formation of a Transbay Bridge District. Supervisor Havenner presented the following resolution",null,null,"n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:13/1",1947,1929,"1929","alternative","study or report",null,"Hoover-Young San Francisco Bay Bridge Commission · alternative: five possible locations for a crossing considered; general location of present high-level bridge recommended","unverified","C124921430",13,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n12",null,"It gave principal consideration to five possible locations for a crossing, and finally recommended the general location where the present high-level bridge is situated.','subject':'x'}]}?OK, correction below.<br>Ignore that; the quote above is invalid. Correct output:{",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:45/2",1947,1946,"1946","finding","study or report",null,"Additional San Francisco Bay crossing · finding: Strong demand by the City and County of San Francisco for bringing main-line railroad trains into San Francisco, unsupported by a proved need","unverified","C124921430",45,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n44",null,"A strong demand by the City and County of San Francisco for bringing main-line railroad trains into San Francisco, unsupported by a proved need;",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","m",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed412sanfrich:1258/2",1946,1946,"1946-04-22","resolution","transit",null,"Supervisors Gallagher and Lewis propose urging federal agencies and Congress to build another San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed412sanfrich",1258,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed412sanfrich/page/n1258",null,"Urging the Navy and War Department and the Congress of the United States to Give Serious Consideration to the Construction of Another Crossing",null,null,"n","a",0,4.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed412sanfrich:1279/1",1946,1946,"1946-04-29","resolution","transit","continued","Board postponed one week a proposed $37,500 (≈ $647,962 in 2026 dollars) city contribution to a state study of a second San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed412sanfrich",1279,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed412sanfrich/page/n1279",null,"Recommending That Chief Administrative Officer Be Requested to Make $37,500 Available to State Department of Public Works for Study",null,null,"n","a",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed412sanfrich:1941/2",1946,1946,"1946-05-27","resolution","transit","continued","A committee resolution asks federal authorities to fully consider the Reber Plan for a second San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed412sanfrich",1941,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed412sanfrich/page/n1941",null,"Memorializing Federal Authorities to Give Full Consideration to All Plans, Including Reber Plan,",null,null,"n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:233/1",1947,1947,"","finding","study or report",null,"Transbay subaqueous tube · finding: Tube not recommended at this time; immediate need is relief for transbay automobile vehicular traffic","unverified","C124921430",233,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n232",null,"the tube is not recommended at this time, as the immediate need is relief for transbay automobile vehicular traffic",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:241/5",1947,1947,"","alternative","study or report",null,"Causeway-tube crossing · cost usd: $750,000 per year","unverified","C124921430",241,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n240",null,"These costs were assumed to be equal at $750,000 per yeare",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:57/1",1947,1947,"","finding","study or report",null,"Alameda County group · finding: Alameda group presented figures indicating the present bridge would be overtaxed before another could be completed","unverified","C124921430",57,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n56",null,"The Alameda group presented figures to indicate that the present bridge would be overtaxed before another could be completed (350).",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:57/2",1947,1947,"","recommendation","study or report",null,"Alameda County group · recommendation: Location and type of structure should be determined by a comprehensive engineering study by the California Toll Bridge Authority","unverified","C124921430",57,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n56",null,"The group felt that the location and type of structure should be determined by a comprehensive engineering study for which the California Toll Bridge Authority is best qualified (346).",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:57/3",1947,1947,"","recommendation","study or report",null,"Alameda County group · recommendation: Unalterably opposed to the Reber Plan or any modification that would interfere with present or proposed port facilities","unverified","C124921430",57,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n56",null,"The group stated that it was unalterably opposed to the Reber Plan or any modification of it that would interfere with present, or hinder proposed port facilities.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:67/1",1947,1947,"","project","study or report",null,"Reber Plan · other: Objected to by shipping group for expense, delay, and hazard from lockage through the dam","unverified","C124921430",67,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n66",null,"The shipping group objected to the Reber Plan because of the expense, delay, and hazard caused by the lockage necessary to pass through the dam",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:67/2",1947,1947,"","agency","study or report",null,"Greyhound Bus Company · proposes: Four lanes for bus and truck traffic on any new crossing","unverified","C124921430",67,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n66",null,"Indicated that any new crossing should include four lanes for bus and truck traffic.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:67/3",1947,1947,"","finding","study or report",null,"Existing Bay Bridge · other: Rail revenues are 8 per cent while rail facilities cost 23 per cent of total bridge cost","unverified","C124921430",67,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n66",null,"They pointed out that rail revenues on the existing bridge are 8 per cent, although rail facilities cost 23 per cent of the total cost of the bridge",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:67/4",1947,1947,"","agency","study or report",null,"Key System · proposes: Four tracks instead of two, with a location near the existing bridge","unverified","C124921430",67,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n66",null,"Desired four tracks instead of two to handle future reer trains and travelers",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:73/3",1947,1947,"","recommendation","study or report",null,"San Francisco Bay crossing · recommendation: asked for rail facilities on the crossing","unverified","C124921430",73,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n72",null,"The Building Trades Council also asked for rail facilities on the crossing (269).",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:115/1",1947,1947,"1947","recommendation","study or report",null,"Additional crossing of San Francisco Bay (tube road clearances) · recommendation: Vertical clearance above the crown of the roadway not less than 14 feet","unverified","C124921430",115,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n114",null,"The vertical clearance above the crown of the roadway should not be less than 14 feet.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:131/1",1947,1947,"1947","finding","study or report",null,"additional crossing of San Francisco Bay (cross-bay rapid transit) · finding: subways furnish the more practicable solution for trains to avoid vehicular traffic","unverified","C124921430",131,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n130",null,"It would seem, therefore, that subways furnish the more practicable solutione",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:143/3",1947,1947,"1947","project","study or report",null,"Proposed super freeway across San Francisco Bay · other: super freeway would provide some 32 highway lanes","unverified","C124921430",143,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n142",null,"So, while the proposed super freeway would provide some 32 highway lanes,",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:145/1",1947,1947,"1947","finding","study or report",null,"Reber Plan · finding: no greater relief to automobile vehicular congestion than a high-level bridge at the same location","unverified","C124921430",145,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n144",null,"the Reber Plan would offer no greater relief to automobile vehicular congestion than a high-level bridge at the same location",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:187/1",1947,1947,"1947","alternative","study or report",null,"Additional San Francisco Bay crossing (Bay Farm Island route) · proposes: Crossing on an axis in line with Bay Farm Island, just north of Hunter Point","unverified","C124921430",187,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n186",null,"just north of Hunter Point, San Francisco, on an axis in line with Bay Farm Island.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","m",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:21/3",1947,1947,"1947","finding","study or report",null,"Second bay crossing (causeway-tube) · finding: practicable from an engineering standpoint and economically feasible","unverified","C124921430",21,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n20",null,"This proposed crossing is practicable from an engineering standpoints It is economically feasible",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:225/1",1947,1947,"1947","finding","study or report",null,"central crossing of San Francisco Bay · other: located closest to the center of demand, half a mile distant","unverified","C124921430",225,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n224",null,"A central crossing would be located closest to the center of demand, as it would be only a half mile distant.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:225/2",1947,1947,"1947","finding","study or report",null,"south crossing of San Francisco Bay · finding: would serve the present pattern of traffic reasonably well","unverified","C124921430",225,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n224",null,"it is concluded that a south crossing would serve the present pattern of traffic reasonably well",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:239/1",1947,1947,"1947","alternative","study or report",null,"Bay crossing alternatives · cost usd: Construction, crossing proper: 75,371,600 / 74,791,000 / 76,525,000 (columns as printed)","unverified","C124921430",239,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n238",null,"Construction ~ Crossing Proper $ 75,371,600 $ 74,791,000 % 76,525,000",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:239/3",1947,1947,"1947","alternative","study or report",null,"Bay crossing alternatives, real estate · cost usd: Real Estate: 27,993,000 / 19,680,000 / 16,605,000 (columns as printed)","unverified","C124921430",239,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n238",null,"Real Estate 27,993,000 19,680,000 16,605,000",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:239/5",1947,1947,"1947","alternative","study or report",null,"Bay crossing alternatives, total grand cost · cost usd: Total Grand Cost: $287,000,000 / $235,000,000 / $261,000,000 (round figures, columns as printed)","unverified","C124921430",239,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n238",null,"Total Grand Cost $287,000,000 $235,000,000 $261,000 ,000",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed42sanfrich:549/4",1947,1947,"1947-03-10","resolution","transit",null,"Supervisors Christopher, Gallagher and McMurray propose petitioning the Governor on a second San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed42sanfrich",549,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed42sanfrich/page/n549",null,"Petitioning Governor to Take Certain Action Affecting Second Bay Crossing.",null,null,"n","a",0,0.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed42sanfrich:1437/2",1947,1947,"1947-05-26","resolution","transit",null,"Resolution proposed asking the Governor to seek a federal-state commission studying a second San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed42sanfrich",1437,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed42sanfrich/page/n1437",null,"Petitioning Governor of the State of California to Initiate Proceedings Looking to Appointment of Federal-State",null,null,"n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:45/1",1947,1947,"August 12, 1946","event","study or report",null,"Public hearings on additional San Francisco Bay crossing · event: Public hearings held in Polk Hall, Civic Auditorium, San Francisco, continued four days","unverified","C124921430",45,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n44",null,"Public hearings were conducted in Polk Hall in the Civic Auditorium of San Francisco, Monday, August 12, 1946, and continued for four days",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","m",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:37/2",1947,1947,"January 1, 1947","event","study or report",null,"State study of an additional San Francisco Bay bridge · event: State studies not completed until about January 1, 1947","unverified","C124921430",37,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n36",null,"the State's studies would not be completed until about January 1, 1947.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:9/2",1947,1947,"January 25, 1947","recommendation","study or report",null,"Joint Army-Navy Board additional bay crossing · recommendation: electric rapid-transit system in a centrally located subaqueous tube devoted solely to mass transportation across the bay","unverified","C124921430",9,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n8",null,"The development of an electric rapid=transit system for mass transportation carried across the bay in a centrally located subaqueous tube devoted solely to that type of treffic",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:31/3",1947,1947,"May 1927","recommendation","study or report",null,"Transbay Bridge · recommendation: No provisions for main-line railroad traffic on any bridge; main-line traffic brought in by tube when economically feasible","unverified","C124921430",31,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n30",null,"this Board recommended that no provisions be made for main- line railroad traffic on any bridge",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:31/4",1947,1947,"May 1927","alternative","study or report",null,"Transbay Bridge · alternative: Bridge-type crossings only considered; three possible locations recommended","unverified","C124921430",31,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n30",null,"This Board considered bridge type of crossings only and recommended three possible locations.",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124921430:37/1",1947,1947,"October 30, 1945","event","study or report",null,"State study of an additional San Francisco Bay bridge · lead agency: Department of Public Works (State), directed by California State Toll Bridge Authority","unverified","C124921430",37,"https://archive.org/details/C124921430/page/n36",null,"Under date of October 30, 1945, the California State Toll Bridge Authority directed the Department of Public Works",null,"Report of Joint Army-Navy Board on an additional crossing of San Francisco Bay","n","a",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed47sanfrich:361/3",1952,1952,"1952-04-21","resolution",null,null,"A resolution on a joint meeting about an additional San Francisco Bay crossing was recalled from committee to the Board.","quoted","journalofproceed47sanfrich",361,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed47sanfrich/page/n358",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed47sanfrich:388/2",1952,1952,"1952-04-28","resolution",null,"continued","Consideration of a resolution urging meetings on a new San Francisco Bay crossing was continued one week.","quoted","journalofproceed47sanfrich",388,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed47sanfrich/page/n385",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed47sanfrich:398/2",1952,1952,"1952-05-05","resolution","transit","tabled","Board temporarily postponed a resolution urging officials to meet on the location of an additional San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed47sanfrich",398,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed47sanfrich/page/n395",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-4.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed48sanfrich:927/4",1953,1953,"1953-10-13","resolution",null,"passed","Resolution assenting to a changed location for the southern San Francisco Bay crossing was adopted as amended.","quoted","journalofproceed48sanfrich",927,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed48sanfrich/page/n927",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,2.12],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed48sanfrich:933/2",1953,1953,"1953-10-13","resolution",null,"passed","The Board adopted, as amended, a resolution assenting to a changed location for the southern San Francisco Bay crossing.","quoted","journalofproceed48sanfrich",933,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed48sanfrich/page/n933",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,4.62],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed53sanfrich:355/3",1958,1958,"1958-05-12","resolution",null,"referred","Resolution opposing a twin or parallel San Francisco Bay crossing was referred back to the County, State and National Affairs Committee for study.","quoted","journalofproceed53sanfrich",355,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed53sanfrich/page/n355",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-1.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed57sanfrich:346/4",1962,1962,"1962-06-04","resolution",null,"referred","A resolution urging a southern San Francisco Bay crossing with a western end at [name withheld] was sent back to committee.","quoted","journalofproceed57sanfrich",346,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed57sanfrich/page/n339",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-2.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed59sanfrich:860/2",1964,1964,"1964-10-26","resolution","transit","referred","A proposal urging a southern San Francisco Bay crossing to [name withheld] was sent back to committee for rehearing.","quoted","journalofproceed59sanfrich",860,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed59sanfrich/page/n857",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-2.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceed60sanfrich:68/1",1965,1965,"1965-02-01","resolution","transit","tabled","A resolution urging a Southern San Francisco Bay Crossing from northern San Mateo County to Alameda County was tabled.","quoted","journalofproceed60sanfrich",68,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceed60sanfrich/page/n67",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,-1.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124901931:52/1",1977,1977,"","finding","study or report",null,"BART-auto work trips · other: 718 individuals sampled; 399 chose BART and 319 chose automobile","unverified","C124901931",52,"https://archive.org/details/C124901931/page/n51",null,null,null,"Explanatory modeling of transbay travel choice : working paper","n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124901931:52/2",1977,1977,"","finding","study or report",null,"BART-auto work trips · other: six attributes significant at the 5% level in the mode-choice decision, same six in all four models","unverified","C124901931",52,"https://archive.org/details/C124901931/page/n51",null,null,null,"Explanatory modeling of transbay travel choice : working paper","n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124901931:52/3",1977,1977,"","finding","study or report",null,"BART-auto work trips · other: at least 71% of travelers correctly classified by any of the four models","unverified","C124901931",52,"https://archive.org/details/C124901931/page/n51",null,null,null,"Explanatory modeling of transbay travel choice : working paper","n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124901931:55/1",1977,1977,"","finding","study or report",null,"BART-Auto nonwork trip sample · other: 143 individuals; 90 chose BART, 53 chose automobile","unverified","C124901931",55,"https://archive.org/details/C124901931/page/n54",null,null,null,"Explanatory modeling of transbay travel choice : working paper","n","a",0,0.0],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124901931:55/2",1977,1977,"","finding","study or report",null,"BART-Auto nonwork trip choice models · finding: More than 72% of individuals are correctly classified","unverified","C124901931",55,"https://archive.org/details/C124901931/page/n54",null,null,null,"Explanatory modeling of transbay travel choice : working paper","n","a",0,0.0],["d","qipu:sf/decision/journalofproceedjanjune85sanfrich:230/4",1990,1990,"1990-02-20","appointment",null,"passed","Norman Rolfe was appointed to the San Francisco Bay Crossing Study Advisory Committee on the recommendation of Supervisor Britt.","quoted","journalofproceedjanjune85sanfrich",230,"https://archive.org/details/journalofproceedjanjune85sanfrich/page/n230",null,null,null,null,"n","a",0,1.38],["f","dl-sf-facts-v1.1-haiku55-2026-10/C124925065:12/4",2000,2000,"July 2000","project","study or report",null,"San Francisco Bay Crossing study · event: MTC has initiated the San Francisco Bay Crossing study","unverified","C124925065",12,"https://archive.org/details/C124925065/page/n11",null,null,null,"Bay Bridge rail feasibility study","n","a",0,-1.0]]}