Talk:AC Transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Info Box

Infobox added. The AC Transit logo is needed for the infobox. Could someone figure out the licensing for that one? Gordeonbleu 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

done lensovet 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

While I appreciate the uploaded AC Transit bus image, it's still of mobile phone camera quality. Could someone upload a digital camera image? Gordeonbleu 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I shall comb through my collection of Berk-area images to see if I have something good. I know I have a pic of a 40L articulated bus turning from Telegraph onto Bancroft, think that will work? lensovet 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, we'd have a photo with both the new Van Hool buses and the older NABI buses, but if we can't, we should have a Van Hool bus at the very least. If we wanted to be very comprehensive, we could also include the new shorter 30-foot Van Hool buses, as well as the hydrogen fuel cell buses (distinguishable with their the bulky tops). Gordeonbleu 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
A quick search through Flickr yielded these results:
Hydrogen fuel cell http://www.flickr.com/photos/vkdir/48955157/
Older model, new paint job http://www.flickr.com/photos/gahjr2000/132735393/
Older model, older paint job http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradforddallas/44071271/
Very old model http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcjohnnyz/50024304/
Van Hool model http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianfuller/137160924/
Those are worth looking into, though the last one is licensed as by-nc, so I'm not sure if we could use that. Take a look at my photos here: http://lensovet.byethost12.com/photos/gallery2/main.php/v/act/ . Let me know which one(s) you like and I can upload to the Commons. lensovet 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
IMG_1860 or IMG_1946 (with rotation and cropping) would be my choice from the batch. Gordeonbleu 05:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded and inserted. Let me know what you think. lensovet 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Nice work! Gordeonbleu 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I blame the MTC!

The MTC is the blame for forcing AC Transit to cut routes (mostly TransBay buses) and is refusing to underpay them.

AC should break away from the MTC and shall be owned by Alameda and Contra-Costa Governments. Keenrich 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If AC Transit were to break away from MTC and transfer ownership to the counties, it would be literally dissolving itself. What you said makes absolutely no sense. 38.114.154.254 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
AC is not "under" the MTC organizationally. MTC is a funding and planning agency, whose main job is to distribute federal and state funds. Other transit agencies in the Bay Area *are* part of counties, or cities, and have the same kind of relationship with MTC that AC has. As long as MTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the Bay Area, it will control those federal and state funds. aaronrp 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Furthermore, AC Transit is a "special district," meaning that it is not organizationally related to the counties. Thus, it can't be owned by the counties - it has little to do with the counties except that it operates in the same area and recieves property taxes from county sales tax measures. Also, what Aaronrp said points to why the Darensburg v. MTC lawsuit is of dubious merit. MTC's current distribution of funds is (a) seriously restricted by federal and state earmarks, and (b) relatively equitable, especially considering that buses simply cost less than rail systems like BART and Caltrain. I don't know who is to blame for AC Transit's slow and (arguably) mediocre service, but I am very unconvinced by allegations of MTC discrimination. 38.114.154.254 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
MTC's distribution of state and federal funds is somewhat limited by earmarks and categorical restrictions, but there is still a lot of room for MTC to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Whether it's "relatively equitable" or not is clearly arguable, but to say that BART and Caltrain should get more money because they are more expensive is in effect arguing against cost-effectiveness.
The lawsuit isn't something that can or should be decided here. MTC has some responsibility for AC Transit's funding level (whether you think that's good or bad), but to blame MTC for planning decisions -- as Keenrich did -- is inaccurate. aaronrp 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that BART and Caltrain should get more money by virtue of the fact that they are rail systems may be arguing against cost-effectiveness, but it's still a valid argument. Cost-effectiveness is not the be-all, end-all. BART and AC Transit serve different functions, and their funding levels reflect that. No bus service could take the place of BART, so it seems foolish to hold them up to the same funding standards. That's all I meant. 38.114.154.254 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History?

Can someone provide some information regarding the contracting of the AC service area? AC Transit used to serve most of the cities of the 680 corridor, but the cities basically kicked out AC Transit and now run their own services. Part of the reason was that AC Transit was under-serving the suburbs, while spending their money on underutilized services in the urban areas. That history should be reflected in this article. Argyriou (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that AC Transit's service in what is now Westcat, Tri-Delta Transit, CCCTA, etc. areas was operated under contract with local authorities and poor service in the early '80s caused loss of those contract. AC's actual district hasn't changed in a major way except for the addition of Fremont and Newark in the early '70s. However, I don't have a source for this. aaronrp 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Route 50 (AC Transit)

This page was a dump for information migrated off of the AirBART page. As an article it is a stub at best, and is mostly irrelevant - it contains no information other than its fares and its airport-BART link, which is actually only a small part of the line. It should either be a candidate for deletion or have any useful information merged into the main article. Bayberrylane 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This information made sense in the airport context and should never have been carved out of the AirBART article. In the process of splitting it off, a "contributor" eliminated a clear comparison of the three airport bus routes -- AirBART, AC Transit Route 50, and AC Transit Route 805 -- as to fares, travel time, and hours of operation. I am not going to bother recreating the original. Given the context in which the information originally appeared, observations like "mostly irrelevant" and "is actually only a small part of the line" are idiotic. The original goal was to answer the question, "I've just gotten off a plane at Oakland at {noon, 2am, etc.}. What do I do now?" Try actually riding a bus sometime! --Anonymous

Hi anonymous: I'm the "contributor" who carved off the information, and I do ride the bus, frequently. Perhaps this information would be useful at the Oakland Airport article? The fact is that the article was entitled AirBART, and yet a third of the article was dedicated to bus service that was not AirBART. AirBART is the name for the bus line run between BART and the airport, not a catch-all term. If you'd like to build a page called Bus transit to Oakland International Airport where you can compare and contrast services, be my guest. --Jfruh (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A good chunk of the Route 50 page was on fares, so I generalized that and put it in its own section here. I think the Route 50 page should be eliminated. Every bus line should not have its own page in an encyclopedia. And the place where people should answer the question "I've just gotten off a plane at Oakland, what do I do now" is wikitravel:Oakland#Get_in Aaronrp 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think with the adding of the text on the airport at the top, everything worth keeping on the Route 50 page is now on this page. I will change the route 50 page to be a redirect to this page in a few days unless there is objection. Aaronrp 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No fewer than 4 possible homes for this information have been suggested: the split-off Route 50 article, the Oakland Airport page, a hypothetical Oakland airport bus transit page, and the WikiTravel Oakland page. Unfortunately, the initiatives taken so far (creation of the split-off Route 50 page and now, addition of fare tables to this, the AC Transit article) have resulted in a net loss of information. It took (and would still take) just a few sentences to compare AirBART, AC Transit Route 50, and AC Transit Route 805 as to effective cost (i.e., with cash fares and available transfers), travel time, and service hours. Re: "be my guest", might I suggest to contributors that they in future take it upon themselves to move information, intact, to what they see as its appropriate home, instead of eliminating important elements. As a relatively new contributor, I can say that this situation will weigh heavily on my decision to contribute thorough, well-written, appropriately referen ced material in future. Have fun, folks! --Anonymous

What information was lost from the Route 50 page? There is now a nice, short description on the AirBART page of what those differences are in general, and new information on this page as to the details, which is more generally applicable. I did remove information about the 90E, for two reasons. First, I didn't have a reference, just my personal recollection, which isn't good enough for Wikipedia. Second, I don't think it's particularly relevant. Obviously that last is just my opinion, but I didn't want to go around searching for historical sources for something I didn't think was important. Ultimately, making a contribution includes editing. Aaronrp 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30-foot bus images

Hello all, I just put in two 30-foot bus images into the article. However, I'd like some input about the 52L image. I have two versions – the currently-displayed one, and this other one. I personally have a preference for the current version, but I want to hear other opinions too. Let me know! —lensovet–talk – 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lettering origination

The article says "The transbay letter designations originated as a means of distinguishing the Key System's transbay trains from those of the Southern Pacific's which were numbered." I actually believe the letters and numbers distinguished the Key System transbay trains from the East Bay Street Railways local routes, and that the SP trains were not numbered until later. But I don't have a source for that. So I marked it with the {{fact}} tag. aaronrp 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AC97.jpg

Image:AC97.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)