Comments on: Recap: MTA Town Hall Meetings

By: hobokins

hobokins — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:19:59 +0000

The fare hikes are just getting ridiculous. Paying $75 for what was recently $45 but with no improvements?!! My eyes’ RX are both over -6.00 without corrective eye wear so I’m considering asking my doctor to diagnose me as legally blind so I can get the disabled discount.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: JL

JL — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:08:52 +0000

Sorry, that should be “We definitely NEED TO make sure the drivers, cleaning crews, etc. have a living wage”.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: JL

JL — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:06:42 +0000

Isn’t the Marie Antoinette the insane contract that automatically sets Muni employees’ salaries among the highest in the nation, with no work performance incentives? I’m all for workers being treated well, but the current system just isn’t working.

I don’t think it’s fair to go after drivers for everything they’ve got (I do own a car, no I’m not rich, I use Muni everyday to commute or travel within SF, and mostly use the car to visit family outside of the city), but Sunday meter hours are worth supporting. But SF also needs to get serious about cuts at the top for all city jobs. We definitely make sure the drivers, cleaning crews, etc. have a living wage (and an SF living wage at that), but we also need to start asking why we have nearly 9000 city employees (as of 2008) raking in six-digit salaries when our transportation is a mess.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/01/09/sfpay2008.DTL

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Daishin

Daishin — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:28:12 +0000

Well if MUNI raises the fast pass fees, then I’ll just pay as I go on the system. It will be cheaper for me to use my car and/or pay the regular fare on a limited basis.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:26:49 +0000

This is so frustrating and unreal. Thanks for the recap.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Aaron Goodman

Aaron Goodman — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:08:48 +0000

Parkmerced’s Proposed changes are of course post MUNI stepping back and leaving us high and dry in the western section district 7. The 19th Ave. Corridor Study does not accurately take into account future growth, and the proposal to place 3 station stops in a .18 mile radius is NOT transit first policy to connect to regional transit systems like Bart, or future line development like the old St.Francis line, or one that would reduce auto use by routing out along brotherhood way, or lake merced, sunset blvd. to eliminate auto use as the primary transit in the “outsidelands” of SF. There is still NO planned significant mass-transit North to South on 19th ave. planned to date. Yet the 1952 interchange at brotherhood way, and Level Title5 transit dollars could easily be applied to route development, housing, office space, and new development along 19th ave, by addressing cumalative growth, tunneling, bridge work, and the creation of new development land and air-rights along 19th to daly city. Future planning and creative solutions are needed, not cuts…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Aaron Goodman

Aaron Goodman — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:05:06 +0000

SFSU/CSU and Institutions that are mandating growth such as their “enrollment” increase, and effects on neighborhoods and transit, should be REQUIRED to negotiate and renegotiate transit MOU’s such as the one crafted for the SFSU Masterplan, which TOTALLY ignored the increases in use, effects of their masterplan, enrollment growth, and reliance on muni’s infrastructure for students to get from down-town to SFSU/Parkmerced. This MOU has NOT been discussed to date. But the CITY of MARINA vs. CSU legal suit pushed for “FAIR-SHARE” contributions of INSTITUTIONS like the CSU who use the systems and infrastructure however are not taxed, or required to support the systems maintenance and advancement in terms of development.

Like or Dislike: 0 0