Comments on: MTA ignores public input, proposes increases in fares Friday (but no extended meter hours)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:49:01 +0000

Competition from private carriers is fine, but unless they get subsidies they’ll never survive. There actually were a lot of jitney services at one time, but now I think only one survives (Market Street Caltrain shuttle). And good luck getting private carriers a subsidy from the MTA.

By: markballew

markballew — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:42:34 +0000

The rational is that we already had a monthly pass increase, and quite a big one at that. Bumping fairs $10 every 6 months will quickly drive ridership down, and not because people don’t want to ride, because they won’t be able to afford to! At some point it becomes cheaper to drive, which is bad for the city’s overall quality of life. We aren’t LA, though ironically they already charge for Sunday meters.

Parking is part of the SFMTA, it is all the same org. As it stands, a portion of meter and garage revenue goes to Muni, so this is an extension of an existing revenue resource.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:34 +0000

What is the rationale for Rescue Muni opposing fare increases. How will that improve Muni?

Universal does not mean transportation for the poor. The goal should be to entice the middle class to use Muni by providing good service. People may be willing to pay for good service. If discount passes are necessary they can be based on low income not age or disabled status.

I agree with the proposed Charter amendment. But I would go further and allow competition from private providers.

Extending parking meter hours and enforcement on Sunday may make sense on its own merits. But it should not be linked to Muni.