AC Transit bus rides to be free during crisis
AC Transit has suspended fare collections, so all rides on the East Bay’s primary bus service will be free for the remainder of the coronavirus pandemic.
“The decision was made out of concern for the health and safety of our bus operators and riders,” said AC Transit spokesman Robert Lyles.
It all comes down to health and space and keeping the 6foot perimeter of social distance between people.
“In order to meet the social distance requirement on a bus
we had to restrict the area where most people congregate,” Lyles said.
On an AC Transit bus the busiest area is at the front where the fare box and the Clipper card reader are a short distance apart making distancing between passengers boarding the bus difficult.
“And both are just a few feet from the operator,” Lyles added.
To keep everyone as far apart as possible, the call was made for riders to enter and exit the bus from the rear doors when possible. Unlike San Francisco’s Muni buses, which have Clipper readers at both the front and rear entrances, AC Transit buses have fare collections only in the front.
Not using the front entrance means not collecting fares — effectively making AC Transit free. Fares normally run from $2.50 up to $6 for the Transbay bus lines.
Like many Bay Area transit agencies, AC Transit is experiencing a dramatic drop in ridership since the shelterinplace directives were announced. AC Transit estimates a drop of between 70% and 90% in its usual ridership of 170,000 per day — that’s an estimated daily revenue loss of $78,700.
But even with the plummeting ridership and revenue, AC Transit plans to keep its 156 bus lines rolling on a full schedule.
“We have been deemed an essential service during COVID19 pandemic,” Lyles said. “AC Transit serves a considerable transitdependent population. These are East Bay residents who have no other way to get to work, to the grocery stores or to medical care.”
Batter up: Opponents of the Oakland A’s waterfront ballpark have filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court seeking to derail the team’s bid for an exemption from state law AB734.
An AB734 exemption would mandate that lawsuits challenging the A’s environmental impact report would need to be adjudicated within 270 days, if possible. Without the exemption, legal challenges to the ballpark development could go on for years.
Ballpark opponents contend that the large crowds and traffic generated by the 34,000seat stadium and adjacent hotel, housing and office development will damage business and operations at the Port of Oakland. The development site is on a piece of port land called Howard Terminal.
The suit was filed just as the A’s and the California Air Resource Board put the team’s application for the exemption out for final public comment.
“Instead of commenting, we are filing suit questioning the entire process,” said Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Vice President Michael Jacob, a leader in an antiballpark coalition that includes Schnitzer Steel, the Harbor Trucking Association and the California Trucking Association, all parties to the suit.
The A’s swiftly issued a statement calling the lawsuit illtimed and illconceived, even evoking the coronavirus pandemic.
“At a time when our community is coming together in the midst of a global public health crisis, the decision to file a lawsuit to halt the environmental review process for the new A’s ballpark reeks of cynicism and desperation,” the statement said.
To which Jacob responded: “It’s pretty cynical and desperate for them to try and tie anybody’s actions to that public health crisis — just unbelievable.”
The lawsuit comes just as the A’s and the air board were wrapping up months of negotiations over the waterfront project’s greenhouse gas emissions.
For the A’s to receive an AB734 exemption, the team must show that the new waterfront stadium project would not exceed the amount of greenhouse gases generated by the team’s current home at the Oakland Coliseum.
Ideally, the new project would generate less greenhouse gas emissions than are being created at the Coliseum. In an effort to cut emissions, the A’s have proposed everything from an overhead gondola shuttling fans between downtown Oakland and Jack London Square, to halving the number of parking spaces at the new stadium.
The A’s and air board staff, however, got into a tugofwar over how to count the greenhouse gases that might still be generated by the Coliseum once the team left, which could have made the greenhouse total count too high for approval.
Eventually, a settlement was reached, with the next step being a period of public comment, then on to the governor’s office for approval.
Before the lawsuit was filed on March 16.
“Based on their actions to date, it's clear the team is once again trying to cut corners in the environmental review process in order to align with their wildly unrealistic goal of completing construction in 2023,” Jacob said.
What impact the suit has on the AB734 approval remains to be seen, but it’s pretty clear that opponents are digging in for a long fight.
The A’s declined further comment.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phil Matier appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KGOTV morning and evening news and can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call 4157778815, or email pmatier@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @philmatier