Transit facility lacks access, proper lighting

Hercules Park and Ride is just another interesting project from the city. The parking and transfer area looks great. The problem is access.

Individuals who have to walk to this area from the west at any time other than daylight can barely see where they are walking since the lighting is the "newer" low-energy type that hardly even lights up the sidewalk.

There is absolutely no approach from the east. Individuals don't even have a sidewalk to walk on, and there isn't any lighting. They are basically walking on a road that has potholes and should have been repaved years ago.

I travel to and from my home on that very road and have seen, among others, a mother pushing a stroller, a man in a wheelchair and an elderly man cautiously trying to walk that road.

The city needs to address this issue immediately. Ironically, the eastern approach passes right by the Caltrans yard. Maybe when the city gets some money from the defunct Hercules Marketplace, it can think about finishing the Park and Ride facility.

Robert J. Bossi

Hercules

E-cigarette usage ban is a witch hunt

An e-cigarette usage ban is a witch hunt in miniature. E-cigarettes emit a vapor, while the nicotine is absorbed by the lungs.

Could it be that some people simply don't like the sight of people puffing contentedly -- and when told to "Put it out," be rebuffed by the rejoinder, "This isn't a real cigarette, it's harmless to you"?

Wow, that would really "burn" me if I'd psychosomatically convinced myself that I was inhaling secondhand smoke. I might even organize a movement to ban public e-smoking. I mean, how dare they blow their fruity vapor around with such insouciance?

Their answer is to make e-smokers pay through the nose with taxes, since they must feel it is an affront that some enjoy nicotine.

Well, so much for "innocent pleasures."

Gamin Mader

Pleasant Hill

Limiting size of sodas would help the cause

I highly applaud thoughtful, balanced columns that look at both sides of an issue and Kate Scannell's recent column on limiting the size of "sugary beverages" did just that.

I believe she hit a significant point that could appropriately be addressed by government when she pointed out that it is often not possible to buy a small soft drink.

I recently was offered a free small soda at a local theater. "Small" turned out to be 32 ounces. Fortunately, my wife was there to share it. It was only a few years ago that the 32-ounce was considered huge.

When I order a small (12 ounce) soda at the snack bar of local stores, I find the reaction typical. They look at me rather oddly and point out that a 24-ounce is only a dime more.

What would be appropriate is making sure that a size no larger than 16 ounces is available. That would give me a better choice than throwing away half the cup. And that store would have my thanks for making a reasonable size available.

R. Kevin Oberman

Livermore