Today’s Headlines

  • BART Crackdown on Fare Beaters (NBCBayArea)
  • BART to Add Substation to Increase Transbay Capacity (Hoodline)
  • Muni Wants to Run 4-Car Trains (SFBay)
  • Payouts to Merchants on Central Subway? (SFChron)
  • Relative Costs of Ford GoBikes (SFGate)
  • Bike Repair Shop on Bike (EastBayTimes)
  • Developer Picked for Balboa Park Reservoir (SFChron)
  • Ground Breaking on Tenderloin Housing Project (SFExaminer, Hoodline)
  • More on SF’s Anti-Native Monument (Curbed)
  • Apple Park Neighbors Fed Up (Curbed)
  • Milpitas, Berryessa BART to Open June 2018 (EastBayTimes, SFBay)
  • Commentary: Hypocrisy Abounds when it Comes to Housing (MarinIJ)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA, national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Has Muni completely lost its mind? Has it even looked at the fact that most of the subway stations cannot handle 4-car trains? Unless there is some magical fund to support construction of extending stations and their platforms (West Portal, Forest Hill, etc.) then this is just idiotic talk as a lame PR gesture to riders. Or, they are simply talking out of their butt. 3-car N trains slogging through mixed traffic…can’t wait.

  • mx

    I’m all for more BART capacity, but losing two entrances at Civic Center is irritating (I’ll admit, particularly so because that’s the entrance I usually use). With more and more residential and office development on Market between 8th and Van Ness, making it more inconvenient for everyone west of 8th to access BART seems like a step in the wrong direction.

    Of course, it would be far less of a problem if we had a German-style unified zone fare structure so a Muni/BART trip from Van Ness to Berkeley cost the same as the BART trip from Civic Center to Berkeley, but the agencies will never give up their fiefdoms.

  • Vooch

    this is the same entity that decided to use broad guage for BART insuring combatibilty with nothing else

  • Baruch

    Isn’t Muni a totally different entity from the BART authority?

  • Yes Muni and BART are different, but share the same illogical approach to operation and are managed poorly. BART’s wide gauge choice was because it was deemed safer for using on the golden gate bridge (under the deck), which, of course, never happened. Therefore, we now have an incompatible system with standard gauge rail. However, dual gauge systems exist in the world, but you’ll never see that happen here. No need to explain why.

  • Unified far structure won’t work with Muni because it’s mostly proof of payment outside of the Market St. subway. Therefore, you can basically ride for free unless the POP posse catches you. If Muni rail was completely grade-separated and required turnstiles at each station where you swipe your card, then perhaps it would make sense.

  • thielges

    Unified fare works just fine in cities without 100% fare gate controls. There’s no technical reason unified fares wouldn’t work here too.

  • mx

    You could do what Amsterdam does, where you have to tap in and tap out of each vehicle. Or just make all of SF one fare zone (London’s zone 1 is around 6 miles by 4 miles, somewhat smaller than the SF city limits, Munich’s MVV’s inner zone is a circle with a radius of 8-9 miles or so, so all of SF in one zone seems pretty reasonable). People riding for free isn’t a unified fare structure problem; it’s a lack of enforcement problem.

  • No technical reason, perhaps. Operational reason? Yes. Have you used the Clipper card machines at the 4th/King Caltrain station? Not to mention you can’t get a card or add money at any of the surface stations along the Embarcadero which requires riders to pay cash ($2.75 versus $2.50) to get a transfer and then pay again on BART/Caltrain.