Using BART from walnut creek monthly pass/costs??? (San Jose, Oakland: buying, living in)

[AmandaSF]

So I have seen that MUNI has a monthly pass that includes BART in SF for $70. I'm assuming that would not include a commute from walnut creek to SF???
Whats the deal with BART not having monthly passes?
So basically how could I commute from Walnut Creek to downtown SF Monday-Friday without paying $9.50 per roundtrip/day. I have seen the discount of buying a $48 ticket for $45. Is there really no other way??

[jade408]

Pretty much. Safeway and Whole Foods sell the discounted passes. There used to be a higher value one with a slightly better discount. Does your employer offer commuter checks?

[mayorhaggar]

They sell discount BART passes at Montgomery and Powell stations, check it out. The places that sell them are around where the fare gates are on the first level below the street, but they are separate companies from BART so they might be a little hard to find. I think the Montgomery one is behind the new Peet's coffee shop between the main BART and Muni fare gates, and the Powell one is in a similar location but to the side of the station.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by AmandaSF

Whats the deal with BART not having monthly passes?

Does anyone know why BART doesn't have monthly passes?

CalTrain and Metrolink both have monthly passes. BART is supposedly in the same class of service, but trip frequency is much better.

I've Googled "Monthly BART" on several occasions and it seams like they've considered it a few times, but never got around to passing it.

[jade408]

Probably because they would lose quite a lot of money. BART was designed for people living in the suburbs to commute into the city. It wasn't designed for people to use as a primary mode of transport. The majority of passengers (especially from a place like Walnut Creek) are 5-dy a week commuters and take very few alternate trips on BART during off peak times. It would be a huge financial blow to BART, because the average trip cost would go way down.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by jade408

Probably because they would lose quite a lot of money. BART was designed for people living in the suburbs to commute into the city. It wasn't designed for people to use as a primary mode of transport. The majority of passengers (especially from a place like Walnut Creek) are 5-dy a week commuters and take very few alternate trips on BART during off peak times. It would be a huge financial blow to BART, because the average trip cost would go way down.

Why are they any different than CalTrain or Metrolink? If they can do it, why not BART?

[jade408]

CalTrain's ridership and reach is really low in comparison to BART, and BART has extraordinarily expensive capital projects in the pipeline. I do not know much about Metrolink. But BART has made it pretty clear, they are a greedy public agency, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for BART to do something good for their customers.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by jade408

CalTrain's ridership and reach is really low in comparison to BART, and BART has extraordinarily expensive capital projects in the pipeline. I do not know much about Metrolink. But BART has made it pretty clear, they are a greedy public agency, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for BART to do something good for their customers.

All of this could be changed with a simple ballot measure. Does the average BART rider enjoy being gouged?

[HockeyMac18]

As someone who's interested in rail/subway history (and how the rise of the car caused many cities to abandon/dismantle subways/light-rail lines for highways), I'm also interested in learning about the history of BART, and why they don't offer some sort of monthly pass. BART is clearly a commuter-rail system, and these types of systems in many other cities almost always have some sort of discount service for people that use the system daily. Even CalTrain offers a monthly pass...

And not to get too off-topic (sorry to original poster), but I've always wondered: why are there two separate agencies anyways? What were the political/economic reasons that lead to the BART lines being laid where they are now, and not being built completely around the bay (or perhaps across the bay further south linking the lines)? Was San Jose not built up enough when BART was initially planned for it to be included? As someone not from the Bay area originally, it just creates confusion and really just causes to me to ask: why?

It just doesn't make any sense to an outsider...But, I guess that should be a whole different thread, though...

If someone knows more about BART's history and why they don't even offer a monthly pass (when clearly they are a commuter-rail system), I'd be happy. Mass-transit history sure is interesting.

[jade408]

When BART launched, counties (and cities) had to pay into the system. Santa Clara county has been paying for a while, as has some further out east bay suburbs (like Livermore). Marin County said no, so BART doesn't go there. There is also a $3 surcharge (or maybe more) to go to San Mateo county, and the airport.

The Bay Area has a million transit agencies, and an regional organization, the MTC, that doesn't do enough, or anything really to improve transit in the region. SF has Muni, much of Alameda county has AC transit which covers about 35 miles north to south and 10 or so east to west. Some of the suburbs also operate city wide service (Walnut Creek, Vallejo, Union City) None of our regions have a region wide view. After 10 years of Beta testing, we are finally getting a single card to pay for transit called Clipper.

If you look at BART maps, it is pretty misleading. The distances between the downtown Oakland and SF stations look to be hardly shorter than stations in the suburbs. You'll also notice most stations are suburban style and above ground. It is a really weird system, and unfortunately it is our only subway.