:previous: As of September they were still selling tokens at City Hall and the booth at Powell St. but you have to ask for them--they haven't advertised their existence for many years.
I can't recall the details now but when they first started seeking local Muni riders to try out TransLink, I was enthusiastic and looked into it but concluded it would not be in any way a plus for me and I lost my enthusiasm. If things change (such as doing away with FastPass-accepting gates at metro stations), I'll reconsider, of course. I'm too old to do what so many Muni riders do and just jump the little railing and ride for free. :rolleyes: |
The Portland fare is actually $86/month for all zones.
For 2 zones (which covers all of downtown & all inner city neighborhoods) it's $75/month. The only mode of transportation that isn't covered under that fare is our aerial tram & even that is under the authority of TriMet. |
Quote:
One thing that is not included in TriMet's monthly pass is Vancouver, WA's public transit system, C-Tran. But C-Tran does offer a pass for $105 that includes all of its buses plus all of TriMet (not sure if the aerial tram is included in that). Anyway, back to San Francisco... |
Construction started TODAY!
Quote:
Anyway, some pics. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/caldecot...loutmap580.jpg http://montclairoak.files.wordpress....-and-after.jpg |
Quote:
Does anyone know if a waiting period like this is the norm, or is it a California thing? |
Quote:
Especially if BART is going to go thru Ruby Hill, which is fast becoming NorCal's version of Westlake Village. |
oops.
|
Here's a map of proposed BART lines to Livermore.
http://barttolivermore.org/files/ima...-map-thumb.jpg You can zoom closer here... http://barttolivermore.org/files/fil...ternatives.pdf |
Well, this article is from a few days ago, so its not technically 'today'
Quote:
http://www.actransit.org/images/plan...allabout_1.gif http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SDi6VA20Xl8/0.jpg http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content...4/EBay_BRT.jpg http://www.dailycal.org/photos/20090...OURTESY-01.jpg |
BART Ponders Raising Transbay Surcharge
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, January 15, 2010 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNEF1BIDIJ.DTL http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...0498171141.jpg A BART train heads into the tunnel in West Oakland that leads to the Transbay Tube. That ride might cost more when bridge tolls go up in July, under a proposal to raise the surcharge to help close the transit district's budget gap. Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle With the cost of crossing the Bay Bridge during peak commute hours likely to climb by $2 on July 1, some BART directors think the time is right to add a 10-cent surcharge to each trip through the Transbay Tube to help bail out the struggling transit agency. BART directors Tom Blalock of Fremont and James Fang of San Francisco suggested tacking on the surcharge on trips beneath the bay during a three-hour discussion Thursday on how to close a $25 million gap for the current fiscal year. BART fares for trips beneath the bay already include an 89-cent surcharge. The additional fee would generate about $4.7 million a year, said General Manager Dorothy Dugger. "We know tolls are going up July 1," said Blalock, arguing that it would make sense to increase BART's transbay tariff simultaneously. "What if we made a pre-emptive strike? I don't want to see us start considering it after the toll increase takes place." ... |
Those without cars hit hardest by Bay Area transit crisis
Part 4 of the series
Quote:
|
What it will take to fix Bay Area transit crisis
Part 5
Quote:
|
BART getting closer to San Jose...
Luke Stangle Reporting luke_stangel@yahoo.com SAN JOSE - The effort to bring BART to San Jose took another step forward Wednesday as the State Transportation Commission voted to release the next $50-million dollars for the Warm Springs extension. The money would be spent to stretch BART another 5-and-a-half miles from it's current end-point in Fremont out to the Warm Springs District, even closer to the Santa Clara County line. A big part of this latest round of funding will be spent to tunnel under Fremont's Lake Elizabeth. The Warm Springs extension will be the next leg of an extension that will eventually lead to Milpitas, Berryessa and on into downtown San Jose. http://kliv.com/BART-getting-closer-...ose---/6119529 |
Quote:
I have many problems with the San Jose extension, but at least it is adding some actual destinations. |
Quote:
I do disagree that there are no congestion problems on 580 between Livermore and Pleasanton. When I travel that stretch, usually early on a Saturday evening, it's darned heavy traffic though not heavy enough to go bumper to bumper. I can only imagine during rush hour on weekdays though. |
Quote:
As for Downtown Livermore, its actually become a bit trendy. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/...d514a73e_b.jpg http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles34914.jpg They really are trying. Quote:
I personally would rather see BART ring the bay and go out to surrounding counties than an HSR from NorCal and SoCal. |
Has anyone looked into the amount of money wasted, the inefficiency, and the logistical problems associated with having so many separate transit agencies in the Bay Area? I can't imagine that they communicate much with each other leading to scheduling conflicts. Further, they probably duplicate resources unnecessarily such as routes, equipment, down to administrative personnel. Then there's the problems of branding and the public's familiarity with the varying systems (Muni, BART, AC Transit, SamTrans, Golden Gate Transit, etc...) Not everyone is as enthusiastic or comfortable figuring out how to use these systems as many people on this forum. I'd really be curious to see how much could be saved and how much more comfortable people would feel if at least all of the light rail and buses were operated under one company?
|
Quote:
If there is a valid destination station being built, the argument can be that you're linking places that need to be linked. If you're simply building another park and ride station, I think you need either A. an argument that it will decrease congestion at a current bottleneck or B. an argument that current stations/parking structures are at or near capacity, or will be soon. Neither is even remotely the case, and I find it hard to believe that there is any amount of ridership looking to go between a freeway median station in Pleasanton or Dublin and a freeway median station in Livermore OR that there is a large amount of potential ridership from people in Livermore who WON'T use BART now with the drive to the parking structure in Pleasanton/Dublin, but WILL with a parking structure in Livermore. |
Quote:
And the public transportation that we have is exactly the public transportation that we as the 9-county have voted for - fractured and not willing to give up one area's independence for fear of favor over another. Even AC Transit is not Alameda County specific - it represents a special district which includes both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. And for the life of me, I have NO idea why Tri Delta and County Connection and WestCAT don't merge into one agency. Did you also know the Santa Rosa, Hayward, Vacaville, and other random cities in the Bay Area also operate their own transit systems. Even Rio Vista operates the Rio Vista Delta Breeze, which carries a massive average of 4 riders a day. |
Worse and worser
from http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/01/15...-9-budget-gap/
MTA Proposes Cuts to Every Muni Line to Close $16.9 Budget Gap by Michael Rhodes on January 15, 2010 4254526368_18462e94ef.jpgFlickr photo: Justin.Beck The MTA is proposing broad-ranging service cuts to Muni in order to close a $16.9 projected budget gap through the end of the fiscal year. The cuts - far greater in scope than the service changes implemented in December - will reduce frequencies on every Muni line and, if they're approved by the agency's Board, will be coupled with fare increases on services including the F-line, express routes, and cable cars. Numerous additional changes are proposed, including charging MTA employees for parking. After alluding to possible further service changes on several occasions, the MTA made the proposal for cuts official with the release of a budget document (PDF) that will be presented at Tuesday's MTA Board meeting. Under the proposal, peak service headways would increase by somewhere in the range of one to two minutes on rapid and express bus lines, one to five minutes on local bus lines, and five to ten minutes on community bus lines, with rapid rail frequencies unchanged. Midday and late evening headways would increase by anywhere from one to five minutes on rapid and express bus lines, one to five minutes on rapid rail lines, two to ten minutes on local bus lines, and five to ten minutes on community bus lines. MTA spokesperson Judson True said the cuts would go in place as soon as May 1 if the agency's Board approves them at their March 2 meeting. All told, the cuts would save the agency $4.8 million in the current fiscal year, and $28.5 million annually, by eliminating 313,000 service hours each year. The rest of the $16.9 million gap would be made up with a package of changes that includes a $3 increase to F-Line historic streetcar cash fares, new requirements for express bus and cable car riders to use a premium $70 monthly pass instead of the cheaper $60 pass, increases in discount pass prices to $30, and an increase in the residential parking permit fee from $96 from $76. The agency is also hoping for labor concessions that could save $10 million annually and $700,000 this budget year, which would also include changes to work rules. MTA employees would start paying for parking at work, bringing in $200,000 for the agency this fiscal year, and Muni customers would pay an credit card fee for online transactions, while customers visiting the MTA's customer service center would pay transaction fees for services that are also available online. Citation costs would also increase by $1.50 across the board, and the MTA will seek $7 million in Prop K sales tax funds from the SFCTA "maintenance and state of good repair to ensure FTA compliance and system performance," according to the budget presentation. The glaring omission from the proposals was an extension of parking meter hours, something MTA staff presented on last year, and which a staff study said could bring in millions to the agency while improving the city's parking management. "It's not part of the staff recommendation for Tuesday," said MTA spokesperson Judson True. Many of the proposed changes require Board of Supervisor approval, and none are a done deal, so there should be a significant amount of debate in the coming months on how the Board will proceed. Some further details of how each line will be affected should be available on Tuesday, said True. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.