Oakland City Council OKs BART Extension
The Oakland City Council OKed the airport extension last night. The Chronicle has details.
»
- icrew's blog
- Login or register to post comments
|
|
User loginNavigationRecent comments
PollWould you all be happy with Configuration C or Configuration B for the new BART Cars?
1. Concept C http://bart.gov/docs/cars/interiorConepage.pdf
83%
2. Concept B http://bart.gov/docs/cars/interiorBonepage.pdf
17%
3. Concept D http://bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120112.aspx
0%
Total votes: 6
Active forum topicsWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
Recent blog posts
|
Oakland City Council OKs BART ExtensionThe Oakland City Council OKed the airport extension last night. The Chronicle has details. »
|
|
|
Boondoggles for all!
Boondoggles for all!
I don't have a problem with
I don't have a problem with another extension project for BART. Sure the price tag is quite hefty, especially after the "negotiations" and calls of concessions and pay cuts, etc. But what gets me is the proposed $6 one way fare! Are you kidding me? I know the fare to SFO was included ten fold recently, partly because of its lack of use and the standard fare raise. But $6 seems really high. Of course patrons, especially travelers/tourists will pay that price (if it holds). It just seems that BART is gouging patrons again. With that said, if I were flying out of OAK and this extension was complete, I would pay the money to use the BART shuttle to OAK. Guess I am paying more for the convenience.
Well think about it this way.
Well think about it this way. BART gutted the other stations that were supposed to prop up ridership. Without riders, how else should BART pay for this expensive boondoggle?
Except this thing wouldn't be
Except this thing wouldn't be any more convenient that an BRT-style shuttle would be. The travel time might end up a minute or two faster but you will have to hike to the center of the airport parking lot before you can even get on the thing.
This post is remarkable. The
This post is remarkable. The poster doesn't care about the OAC's $500 million-plus price tag, but doesn't want to pay the fare necessary to build a $500 million-plus 3.2 mile long people mover, because that's gouging? This would have made some sense if the post had recognized the inconsistency between those two statements, suggested alternate funding sources for O+M, such as higher taxes, or even made some comment about where the poster believes that kind of revenue might originate.
Count me as one of those who thinks the percentage of public funding for public transportation should be significantly increased, and the percentage of farebox revenue reduced. Still, if a post is going to complain about a $6 one-way fare, it should support the cheaper and more effective dedicated-bus lane option, or support ponying up from other sources.
What a waste. I'll never
What a waste. I'll never take it since I ride AC Transit to OAK, even with all my luggage.
You are lucky you have AC
You are lucky you have AC Transit as a back-up. Wish we had decent bus service that runs as late as AC Transit in East Contra Costa County. Would LOVE to leave the car at home but since I work swing that's out.