Federal bill to include $13.5M for S.F. transportation

I have been taking Bart for over 2 years and i find it quite convient. I drive to Bart and now bart is tacking on another $1 for Parking. I also use the Ez-Rider for Bart and now i just added the parking as well. It saves me a whole lot of time in the morning. I don't have to fish for money, i just wave my card across the little screen and them i am off to my train. Now if they could come up with a way to transfer or even access the empluees account to add the money, then we will all know it is being used for that purpose and purpose alone. I hear of so many people who get the commuter checks and give it away, not fair at all. I think the communter mandate is a great idea.

I don't know what small business would have more than 20 employees, but I suppose this targets larger businesses or chain businesses that do not provide transit benefits (ie Safeway or larger restaurants). I think the City should make its own workers participate in a program like this instead of handing out free passes or parking spaces.

Bad, Bad, Bad! Are we really trying to drive small businesses out of SF? First we nail them with health insurance costs - OK, that's expensive but is a social necessity. But now we nail them with transit benefits? At what point do they say "Enough, I'm outta here!" If you want big business benefits for everyone, then only big businesses can afford to do business here, and SF will be one giant, albeit beautiful, Mall. Is that what we want? High payroll taxes, insurance costs, transit costs, and all this for a city that has the highest per capita budget in the United States! Does anyone know that? With a 6.5 BILLION dollar budget, that works out to a cost of $8,000 per man, woman and child in SF - more than LA, NY, etc. So now we throw another expense onto small businesses. What's wrong with this picture? Vote out our "Progressive" supervisors before the city implodes completely. Sigh....

This is why it's called a small business and not a big one where benefits are galore. If a small business can penny pinch their employees, they have no choice but go elsewhere later. A new law can't force a small business to provide benefits to their employees, they'll go belly up.

I'm not familiar with the Federal Law that is referenced in the article. Please specify the Federal Law.

A smart proposal for Commuter Checks or something similar. I work for SFSU, and while this legislation is does not have any jurisdiction on State of California property, we are the only California State University offering this program to its employees. It is pre-taxed from your payroll, and I felt it was simple enough to spend a couple of minutes to fill out the paperwork and place my order online. And presto! My check came in the mail. Even easier, instead of asking for a check, you can have an actual pass, and even BART tickets mailed to you. Translink now offers automatic uploading of electronic cash to your account too. This means you don't have to hassle with claiming the check.

Ferry project sounds like a good one. With the the cities and state broke, how will it be paid for?

While this program could have considerable benefits, how is MUNI going to handle the increased ridership when it appears fully-challenged servicing existing ridership?

Ah the communist nation of San Francisco and Comrade Smikirmi is at it again. I don't think they should require small businesses to offer this to employees. If Matthew the coffee shop barista wants to be paid for his commute, then he should find an office job. Those companies offer commuter benefits. When will the regulation of small business in SF end?

Getting more city employees out of their cars is actually quite easy: cut the number of parking spaces available to employees, or make them more expensive.

Regarding what grumpy Martin Engel said in the first comment. Maybe Caltrain has a legitimate concern in wanting to cover their a**. I know for a fact that the families many of those yahoos who walk around the downed crossing gates and right in front of the trains, ignoring blaring horns, lights and bells seek out the first ambulance chasing lawyer they can find and sue the railroad. Personal responsibility in today's world? You've got to be kidding! It was all that bad old railroad's fault, even if their beloved was drunk and laying on the tracks or had his head half way up his you-know-what!

Cameras? A million dollar grant? Half a million for the cameras? Why? Will that make the tracks any safer? I don't think so. Then, what are they for? They will relieve Caltrain and its personnel from any liability by documenting how none of the accidents/fatalities are their fault. In Mike Rosenberg's article, he even uses the headline to make my point, only in a much more neutral way. (To put it bluntly, it's a free "cover-their-a**" investment!) The other reason is that getting "free" money, like grants, is what government organizations do. Getting and spending the money is more important than solving any problem. The money comes from the 1-B bond issue, one billion of which was earmarked for "public-transit system safety enhancements." How cameras will make the train corridor safer is an explanation I would like to hear. Fencing? Four-Quad Gates? Sure. But cameras? Post-mortem?

Engineer not conductor. Engineers are opereating the train.

Be happy that people with insight and vision found a way to agree and build BART decades ago...I moved to Hawaii (from SF) and my commute wastes 3 hours each day on Oahu (just to get to work) by car. If I take the bus, add an hour each way. It's just as fast to bicycle the entire distance (35 miles to Waianae). Why? Because our city council killed "rail transit" 16 years ago...and they're are still not in agreement! I would recommend bicycling to others but the lack of adequate (safe) bike paths makes it so dangerous I won't even take my children riding to the beach...so stop whining and ride BART, MUNI, or your BIKE...It's the only long term solution for a sustainable future

I'm looking forward to the silver lining, when some of the new, more affluent, better-connected riders pitch a fit about how difficult and miserable it is to get around on the bus. No insult to the drivers: you're stuck, too, and make my day when you try to get us all on board and where we need to go.

I wish I can believe that people are starting to care about our environment by taking public transit, but I think it has more to do with high gas prices than anything else.

MUNI's inability to service existing lines didn't stop the T-line from being built. The city will likely continue such transit line construction to create the illusion that adequate transit service exists in any number of neighborhoods, for any number of housing developments. As far as I can tell, these new lines are being built (as selling points) to satisfy developers as much as serving ridership.

I'm with Seven on this one. How is yet another MUNI line going to be adequately serviced when MUNI cannot even adequately serve existing lines?

Couldn't we skip the central subway and use the money to actually improve Muni?