5 ms·

At $50B, yes. BART will exist in some form for at least a century. It is so hard to understand how valuable it is to make something that so many people use eve

At $50B, yes. BART will exist in some form for at least a century. It is so hard to understand how valuable it is to make something that so many people use every day for that long but it is really valuable.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 8y ago
How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the same infrastructure as Europe. That pushes the required value per ride that needs to be generated to unrealistic levels.
- philsnow 8y ago
  You haven't taken into account how much the bay area would have needed to spend on bridges and freeways if BART hadn't been built. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_June17_0.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_... says (as of 2017) 70k people go through the transbay tube in each direction during peak commute hours. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.html http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.htm... isn't dated but says that 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day. These numbers aren't directly comparable because they're not measuring the same thing, but taking things as pessimistically as possible, let's say those 270k vehicle crossings all happen during the same time period as the BART numbers. If all those commuters crossed the Bay Bridge by themselves in a vehicle (because the overwhelming majority of car commutes are one person per car), that would be (270k + 70k) / 270k or a 26% increase in vehicles, when it's already ludicrously packed every single day. The bridge would need to have been widened by now (or another bridge built entirely, with feeder freeway interchanges on both sides).
  - rayiner 8y ago
    I'm not ignoring it. I'm computing the per-trip capital cost for BART assuming today's inflated construction costs, and asking if the reduced congestion/need for road infrastructure would still justify that investment given today's costs. I don't think you realize how completely bonkers the cost of mass-transit development has gotten. New York is up to $1.5-3.5 billion per mile of subway. The new Bay Bridge, massively over-budget at $6.4 billion, represents just a few miles of subway (BART has almost 30 miles).
  - masonic 8y ago
    70k people go through the transbay tube... 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day In other words, taking your figures painfully literally, if those vehicles carpooled just one additional passenger each on average, you'd have 4 times the added throughput that BART provides. But this will never happen as long as we give HOV lane access to cars other than those carrying 2+ licensed drivers... for political reasons.
- amunicio 8y ago
  Let's take your own reasoning and let's apply it and see where the numbers fall. The Bart cost was $1.586 billion (according to Wikipedia) or around ~$10 billion of today's dollars. Let say that back then we had put that money ($1.586 billion) into an annuity in perpetuity and given the money each years to the riders so they will find alternative means of transport. So if instead of building bart back in the 70's we had put the money into a perpetual annuity, we would be receiving the sum of $63.5 millions a year from the annuity (your own numbers seem to indicate a 4% yield). That is less than 50 cents per ride (according to Wikipedia Bart gives 129 million rides a year). I don't think the cost is insignificant compared with the level of economic activity that the 400.0000 daily riders generate for SF and the Bay Area in general. And now imagine 20 years from now how much $63.5 millions a year will buy you compared with the benefits of mass transportation.
  - harryh 8y ago
    Your math is wrong. You can (at least historically) get a 4% annuity that rises with inflation in perpetuity.
    - amunicio 8y ago
      Where can I get a save investment that pays a 4% annuity that rises with inflation? I'm genuinely curious. My father is retired and has some savings and that would seem like the ideal investment for him.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    For things like endowments, the general assumption is that you can get a 4% yield that keeps pace with inflation, without touching principal. So you'd be up to $300 million per year today. That's about $2.50 per BART ride of $750 per year per BART rider, which is a believable number. The problem that you're ignoring, however, is that the relative cost of building infrastructure today is far higher than it was in the 1970s. If you built BART today, it wouldn't cost $10 billion in today's dollars. NYC's recent projects are running $1.5-3.5 billion per mile of subway track. BART has 28 such miles. That's $42-100 billion, not including the other 70 miles in the system. So what if BART had cost $8 billion ($50 billion in today's dollars) instead of $1.586 ($10 billion)? Instead of having to great $2.50 of value per ride to justify the investment, you're up to at least $12.50. Or $3,750 per daily BART rider. Is each BART trip generating that much value compared to doing the same trip in a car?
- masonic 8y ago
  That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Or debt service.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 8y ago

How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the same infrastructure as Europe. That pushes the required value per ride that needs to be generated to unrealistic levels.

philsnow 8y ago
You haven't taken into account how much the bay area would have needed to spend on bridges and freeways if BART hadn't been built. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_June17_0.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_... says (as of 2017) 70k people go through the transbay tube in each direction during peak commute hours. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.html http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.htm... isn't dated but says that 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day. These numbers aren't directly comparable because they're not measuring the same thing, but taking things as pessimistically as possible, let's say those 270k vehicle crossings all happen during the same time period as the BART numbers. If all those commuters crossed the Bay Bridge by themselves in a vehicle (because the overwhelming majority of car commutes are one person per car), that would be (270k + 70k) / 270k or a 26% increase in vehicles, when it's already ludicrously packed every single day. The bridge would need to have been widened by now (or another bridge built entirely, with feeder freeway interchanges on both sides).
- rayiner 8y ago
  I'm not ignoring it. I'm computing the per-trip capital cost for BART assuming today's inflated construction costs, and asking if the reduced congestion/need for road infrastructure would still justify that investment given today's costs. I don't think you realize how completely bonkers the cost of mass-transit development has gotten. New York is up to $1.5-3.5 billion per mile of subway. The new Bay Bridge, massively over-budget at $6.4 billion, represents just a few miles of subway (BART has almost 30 miles).
- masonic 8y ago
  70k people go through the transbay tube... 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day In other words, taking your figures painfully literally, if those vehicles carpooled just one additional passenger each on average, you'd have 4 times the added throughput that BART provides. But this will never happen as long as we give HOV lane access to cars other than those carrying 2+ licensed drivers... for political reasons.
amunicio 8y ago
Let's take your own reasoning and let's apply it and see where the numbers fall. The Bart cost was $1.586 billion (according to Wikipedia) or around ~$10 billion of today's dollars. Let say that back then we had put that money ($1.586 billion) into an annuity in perpetuity and given the money each years to the riders so they will find alternative means of transport. So if instead of building bart back in the 70's we had put the money into a perpetual annuity, we would be receiving the sum of $63.5 millions a year from the annuity (your own numbers seem to indicate a 4% yield). That is less than 50 cents per ride (according to Wikipedia Bart gives 129 million rides a year). I don't think the cost is insignificant compared with the level of economic activity that the 400.0000 daily riders generate for SF and the Bay Area in general. And now imagine 20 years from now how much $63.5 millions a year will buy you compared with the benefits of mass transportation.
- harryh 8y ago
  Your math is wrong. You can (at least historically) get a 4% annuity that rises with inflation in perpetuity.
  - amunicio 8y ago
    Where can I get a save investment that pays a 4% annuity that rises with inflation? I'm genuinely curious. My father is retired and has some savings and that would seem like the ideal investment for him.
- rayiner 8y ago
  For things like endowments, the general assumption is that you can get a 4% yield that keeps pace with inflation, without touching principal. So you'd be up to $300 million per year today. That's about $2.50 per BART ride of $750 per year per BART rider, which is a believable number. The problem that you're ignoring, however, is that the relative cost of building infrastructure today is far higher than it was in the 1970s. If you built BART today, it wouldn't cost $10 billion in today's dollars. NYC's recent projects are running $1.5-3.5 billion per mile of subway track. BART has 28 such miles. That's $42-100 billion, not including the other 70 miles in the system. So what if BART had cost $8 billion ($50 billion in today's dollars) instead of $1.586 ($10 billion)? Instead of having to great $2.50 of value per ride to justify the investment, you're up to at least $12.50. Or $3,750 per daily BART rider. Is each BART trip generating that much value compared to doing the same trip in a car?
masonic 8y ago
That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Or debt service.