10 ms·

BART ridership is still down nearly 70% from pre-Covid levels

88 points by armanhq 3y ago

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
As the article states, the reason why BART is so heavily impacted is because it was mostly designed as commuter rail. BART is unique in that historically it paid most of its costs in farebox revenue. While peak-hour (morning and evening commute) ridership is catching up again (BART publishes numbers so you can check the work here), usage outside of peak hours is at an all-time low because of the increase of WFH jobs. Since the rail alignment of BART can't be changed now, we'll probably settle on a new normal with BART. BART along the same alignment still moves 2x more people than the Bay Bridge does though, which is something to remember as non-users of BART clamor for its defunding.
- ghaff 3y ago
  When I looked recently, Boston was still at just over 50% of pre-COVID transit utilization though some commuter rail and subway lines were a bit better--and bus lines were a bit better yet. Anecdotally traffic at rush hour is at least as bad as ever so it at least appears that some people switched back to (or started) driving who hadn't before. Boston has had some well-publicized transit issues due to long-delayed transit maintenance but, at least short- to mid-term, it's lost a bunch pre-COVID commuting which has switched to driving.
- danhak 3y ago
  I’m a little confused by the reasoning here. You state that peak (commute) traffic is recovering but off-peak is still low, due to WFH? Wouldn’t WFH be impacting peak hours, with off-peak at all-time-low due to other things like leisure travel?
  - junofan 3y ago
    Also if the decline is all WFH, why have private vehicle miles traveled recovered to pre-pandemic levels?
    - verall 3y ago
      Have they recovered in the bay? I thought the whole bay is still much less traffic due to WFH.
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      Is that miles total or commuting miles? If its miles total, I would chock it up to people doing more leisure travel, seeing family etc. I don't think RTO is in full swing in such force that its commuter miles, so I'd say you're seeing a big uptick in leisure travel right now, which makes sense, as more and more people are becoming comfortable with this again
    - TheBigSalad 3y ago
      Well it can't be ONLY wfh. I think they meant "primarily". But more commuters choosing to drive is impacted by fewer people driving in due to WFH. The traffic was light, so they drove. Now traffic is normal again.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    I'm not 100% on my reasoning, so I welcome alternate explanations. I suspect that a lot of part-time or odd-hour positions were most impacted by WFH. I'm guessing many of these have gone remote. Moreover, headway was cut back during the pandemic so folks who absolutely had to go into their positions may have invested in a car and don't feel the need to get back on transit because traffic off-peak is not too bad.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      I’m going to guess that people still want to go to mixers and events and happy hours in SF and those still happen at the same time If thats when peak hours are
      - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        Speaking for myself, I rarely go to downtown SF now and go out mostly in downtown Oakland these days. The businesses are just as, if not more, vibrant and I have more transit options (BART, bus, BRT, bike) than being forced to take BART across the Bay. Before the pandemic SF downtown had a much more vibrant scene but Oakland has caught up if not exceeded the SF scene. This is just myself though.
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      I’ve always thought that the jobs most “susceptible” to WFH are the traditional, 9-5 white collar jobs. Am interested to know if this is correct (outside of software industry, especially).
      - aidenn0 3y ago
        Just a theory, but white-collar jobs that now offer WFH as a perk probably offered flexible hours as a perk pre-COVID. This is conducive to commuting during off-peak hours.
        PaulHoule 3y ago
        I worked for about a year for a startup based in L.A. where I was the only remote and it seemed they worked roughly 10:30-6:30 to shift their commutes off-peak.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    I was wondering the same. Perhaps peak is all about people on fixed schedules like shop assistants amd the like, whereas those jobs that have switched to WFH Havre far mow flexible hours and many were using that flexibility was to avoid peak hours?
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    BART used to be so busy that people getting on in downtown stations would back-track to Civic Center/The Mission to actually get a seat across the bay. A similar amount of behavior existed of people doing anything to avoid a peak hour BART train. Now, if you're commuting in, the best times are during rush. BART numbers will always seem insanely low vs. pre-pandemic because they were unsustainable high back then.
    - simfree 3y ago
      Instead of treating public transit as an enterprise that should break even, we should consider what removing barriers to access through fare free public transit can do to serve our citizens more effectively. Many transit districts in Washington State have already gone fare free. Removing the barrier of paying helps drive more ridership, particularly on non-peak hours that traditionally see much lower ridership. The rail already exists, increasing it's utilization by will drive economic growth and help municipalities recover and heal the donut hole that was punched in many urban cores by the pandemic.
- ars 3y ago
  > BART along the same alignment still moves 2x more people than the Bay Bridge does though, which is something to remember as non-users of BART clamor for its defunding. How much does BART cost per year (or per decade) vs the Bay Bridge? A huge advantage of roads vs public transit is you don't need staff. (Maintenence is needed on both, but even then I suspect roads are cheaper to maintain.)
  - WWLink 3y ago
    The bay bridge and golden gate bridge are perpetually being painted. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/visuals/bay-bridge-golden-gate-bridge-painters/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/visuals/bay-bridge...
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Also the drivers fund the heavy moving equipment which is a huge subsidy for the roads. The BART has to pay for everything out of fares and sundry. The highway authority just has to build and maintain the road not the vehicles.
    - kimixa 3y ago
      True - the majority of the BART maintenance cost is the rolling stock not the track. How much does the average commuter spend on car maintenance and fuel? Or even the capital expenditure in the first place, if that commute is the difference between needing a(nother?) car for the household in the first place. And costs like the drivers and station workers is just split over the 1-per-car drivers across an equivalent road. I don't know anyone who enjoys that commute, likely arriving more stressed rather than less, and you can't read or prep for your real work in any way when driving. It's a common fallacy to ignore relatively small per-person costs, even if the total adds up to a massive amount due to the numbers of people.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    This is actually a fun one to point to. Replacing the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge happened recently, and has been one of the most expensive Californian infrastructure projects to date. It started with a price tag of $250 mil but it ended up costing $6.5 bil. In the meantime, BART has performed modifications on their tracks and has begun switching to new rolling stock, but it's been a lot cheaper than replacing the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >BART is unique in that historically it paid most of its costs in farebox revenue. Because it's expensive as hell, and the only sane option for commuting into the city during rush hour. A $10 round trip to go 5 miles from the east bay to downtown is absolutely crazy. Easily double the price of any other metro in the US.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    Easily an order of magnitude more than Singapore.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Not if you compare to commuter rail. I'm further out but if you look at commuter rail parking, the train itself, and subway if I need to take it, I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day. (If I do it every day, the pass is a bit cheaper.) Yes, if I don't need to park at the subway and don't need to take commuter rail, it's about $5 but that's not really the norm for a lot of people coming in from the suburbs.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day Jesus! Between what stations? That is a crazy fare.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        Commuter rail from N. Leominster to Porter is 24.50 round-trip + $4 for parking + ~$5 round-trip for the T. That's still cheaper than driving in for a day which would be about $50 round trip using IRS rates plus parking which could easily be $30+. (I'll drive in the evening or weekend when driving/parking are easier/quicker and the commuter rail really isn't very practical for an evening event.)
        3y ago
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  > BART along the same alignment still moves 2x more people than the Bay Bridge does though, which is something to remember as non-users of BART clamor for its defunding. Any source for that? For BART numbers: 1. Is it traffic across the bay? 2. Or total traffic? Edit: Digging up some data, I think it is #2, which seems a weird number to use. BART total per day: ~400k Bay Bridge per day: ~200k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland_Bay_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland_Bay_Brid... https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/June18FactSheet_v1.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/June18FactShee...
WheelsAtLarge 3y ago
I don't think this is unique to BART. My local news regularly highlights what an S-hole our subway system is. It has become a good place for the homeless to spend their day and no one has found a satisfactory fix for now. Right now you only ride the Subway if you absolutely don't have an alternative. Low ridership feeds on itself since low ridership leads to even less ridership and the accompanied decrease in the budget to run it.
- rektide 3y ago
  DC areas metro is facing a good 3/4 billion$ shortfall too, with federal support ending. We have the added shitshow of being a metro system spanning three different states. No one wants to pay, no one feels responsible; it's a mess.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Yeah, but they just jacked up the prices to encourage ridership. So it should be all good now.
    - ars 3y ago
      I rode the DC metro with family because I was warned about parking and traffic in DC. BIG MISTAKE! On the second day I took a car, and it took 1/3 the time, and 1/10 the cost EVEN with searching and paying for parking. Public transit should be free.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Farebox recovery is so damn low that I can only think the fares remain as an excuse to kick homeless and other undesirables off who aren’t technically breaking any rules or laws.
        Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        It's a pretty new topic in the US and studies are being conducted on this. AC Transit recently did one (I can link it if there's interest.) Indeed, farebox recovery is low enough that one of the main arguments for fare enforcement is to kick problem riders off. This is most impactful for operators who have to deal with the passengers in a way we riders do not.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gautamcgoel 3y ago
I live in Oakland and am frightened of taking BART after hearing many horror stories from friends. If I, a healthy man in his 20s, am afraid to take BART, imagine how intimidating it must be for women and the elderly.
- loaph 3y ago
  I road BART on Tuesday and it wasn't scary. You repeating what you heard might just create an echo chamber that amplifies something that isn't true and gets other people to believe it.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Which area did you ride it in?
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Counter anecdata, I rode Bart last night from 16th mission at ~9PM. First I waited 45mins for a train, then all the available seats on that car were covered in piles of trash, and panhandlers hassled the elderly couple next to me. I think BART is generally tolerable, but you're dismissing how obviously fucking terrible the BART experience can be and regularly is. A lot of people aren't willing to deal with that roulette, nor should they have to. Other transit systems aren't this bad.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  That's true. Even if I intellectualize a trip on BART as risk-free, it's still anxiety inducing and involves inconvenience I would volunteer to avoid if I had a car.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Ok but this is not the reason. People don’t ride BART because half of working professionals now work at home and don’t need it. You can clearly see this in the fact that weekend BART riders is most of the way back to pre-COVID levels. Riders are not afraid of the system. It just doesn’t serve their weekday needs right now. By the way freeway shootings in the Bay Area tripled to more than one every day and plenty of people still use the freeway.
ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Highway traffic on my commute never got back to as bad as it was pre-COVID. I imagine a lot of transit expansion projects won't make sense anymore. (Or less sense than they did before re: induced demand.)
akanet 3y ago
I think the analysis here tends a bit pessimistic. Bart just had its biggest day in years at Pride and its recovery is in line with the other agencies in the bay. If you're a fan of BART, I'd also like to invite you to the premiere of my movie about BART, playing at July 18th, 630pm at the Roxie. Here's a trailer: https://youtu.be/7eH3FfIGp8w https://youtu.be/7eH3FfIGp8w, and you can grab tickets at https://roxie.com/film/tunnel-vision https://roxie.com/film/tunnel-vision.
bquinlan 3y ago
In my social circle there is a perception that the BART is increasingly unsafe and some people who previously used the BART to commute from East Bay to SF are now driving. Their perception seems to be born out by the data: From the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department [1] Aggravated Assault (2019): 112 Aggravated Assault (2022): 114 Relative increase (2019 -> 2022) adjusted for ridership: 114/112/0.3 = 3.39x [1] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-01%20Monthly%20Chief%27s%20Report%20CRB%2003012023.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-01%20Mont...
- jandrese 3y ago
  Is it possible that the amount of assault is relatively unrelated to total ridership? Like the number of criminal assholes in the community is about the same regardless of how many people use mass transit?
  - jb12 3y ago
    The point is that with a constant amount of assaults, and fewer potential victims, you are more likely to be a victim.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago
      Only if you assume random victims of assault. That’s a pretty big assumption
      - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        How is this not probabilistic victim blaming?
        22c 3y ago
        I don't think it's victim blaming, it's a valid point. Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities. There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.
jandrese 3y ago
In my area the subway system has still not recovered from pre-pandemic ridership levels. It has made me wonder if the kind of people who rode the subway were more likely to work from home. But at the same the the roads are also less busy than they were, at least judging from the amount of congestion delays we experience on a day to day basis. This is good and bad. The good is that I can almost always get a seat on a train that used to be packed shoulder to shoulder standing room only. The bad is that the fare went from $3.10 to $5.50 each way.
- Reason077 3y ago
  > "I can almost always get a seat on a train that used to be packed" > "the fare went from $3.10 to $5.50 each way" I suspect there is a cause & effect relationship between these two observations. But which is which?
  - jandrese 3y ago
    The fare increase happened about a week ago.
Reason077 3y ago
London Underground has reached over 90% of pre-pandemic passenger numbers as of April 2023 [1], and Transport for London expects to achieve an operating surplus in 2023-24. Notably, while peak-time commuter travel is still down on pre-pandemic levels, weekend passenger numbers on some routes has hit new all-time records. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65821633 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65821633
jrockway 3y ago
I think BART is the perfect storm of commuter railroads that aren't going to recover. San Francisco is tech heavy, and tech still seems pretty work-from-home heavy. A problem I always wondered about is whether or not BART was the right system for San Francisco, as it seems a lot of the big companies are out in the suburbs and never had public transportation. I walked from the Mountain View train station to the Googleplex once. Nobody does that twice. (These companies have their own transportation networks, which is kind of a shame for visitors.) I don't know what other cities look like. I've ridden the subway in New York on and off throughout and past the pandemic. This week was the first week that seemed normal to me. I don't commute, but have ridden the subway at commuting times, and it's definitely a little more chill than it used to be. (Easy to get a seat! But the train does eventually fill up as you get farther into Manhattan.) Looking at the commuter railroads, which I think is the fairest comparison to BART, they seem to be 50% of their all-time peak capacity. Not ideal, and I'm not convinced that 50% of the New York metro will be allowed to work from home forever. It will be interesting to see what congestion pricing does to people that used transit before the pandemic that drive now. When I worked in Manhattan, I had a friend that drove every day. He showed me the spreadsheet that he used to decide between a monthly pass on MNR versus driving, driving was ever so slightly cheaper. With a $20 a day charge to drive into the city coming in the next couple years, that might be the edge that the railroads need to make it a financially viable decision. I always thought we should make mass transit free and see how the numbers do. If 400,000 people drive into the city every day, and 2,000,000 people take the train, it's clear where the tax dollars should go. But I think as soon as you charge someone that first $1 to take the bus, pretty much everyone decided "fuck it, I'll just drive". The costs are a little more insidious, wear and tear on your vehicle, gas once a week, etc. People count that as free. (For example, do you ever turn on electrical appliances without thinking about the cost of electricity? That's driving.)
- cyberlurker 3y ago
  I had high hopes for NYC when they hired the new MTA guy before Covid. But then he got pushed out by Cuomo and it seems like he was prevented from carrying out the reforms needed to fix the subway properly. I highly doubt the state, which controls the budget, will ever make the subway free. I am doubtful they will even pony up the cash to perform the maintenance the system truly needs.
camel_gopher 3y ago
The core problem is assholes on the trains. People stopped riding because there’s either someone dangerous, someone crazy, or someone tweaked out. Literally on every Bart car, probably 2/3 of the time I ride. I end up using the Bart watch app to report this stuff every other time I ride. One guy tried to light a seat in fire. Another tailgated me through the gates and proceeded to push past me. Another was slumped over in a wheelchair (someone called 911 in that case). To their credit, the cops on the other end of the Bart watch app respond to almost everything submitted. They don’t have enough officers though to cover the whole system. How do you fix it? Add more cops. No ticket, no ride. Two cops on every train. One at every other station. Arrest anyone who is there without a ticket more than once. Arrest anyone jumping the gates. Enough with the nonsense.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The San Diego Trolley used (haven’t been there in 20 years) to be crawling with cops; you’d be hard pressed to do a longish ride without seeing at least one.and they responded fast. The latter being important; if you see a situation, report it, and see it handled it fades away as a memory; if each time you see it it never gets resolved and you just leave, it stays as a bad memory.
- poisonarena 3y ago
  > Two cops on every train. One at every other station. that will never ever happen. I remember 15 years ago reading about how much BART police get paid, was supposed to be way up there to the point people got upset about it
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  Cops are expensive. You can run a bus line all day for the cost of 3 officers. If you want cops everywhere, aside from the fact that the HN demographic is much more open to this than lower income folks, you're gonna have to deal with a much more expensive transit system which will cost taxpayers more. The disconnect is frustrating though. Middle and low income people do not trust the police. Don't believe me? Just listen in on any public meeting. Multiple community members and community groups call in to talk about how much they hate the police. Nobody calls in about how much they were helped by the police, unless they live in a wealthy district.
StickyRibbs 3y ago
I'm one who lives in the east bay (oakland/emeryville area) and don't use BART anymore because I'm WFH now. I also choose to drive into the city on weekends and off commute hours because the BART always has sketchy people, homeless, some weirdo moving up and down the carts and there's never enough people in the off hours to make it feel safe and worth it. It's a bummer because I'm down the street from Macarthur and would love to take it more often but I always have to be on guard which is not the travel experience I need in my life right now.
emmetG 3y ago
[flagged]
stevage 3y ago
Title is wrong. It is down 30%.
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  Measuring pixels on the chart it looks like BART is at 40% of pre-Covid levels (so down 60%). Public transit ridership nationally is at 65% and the MTA is at 70%.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  It's more like down 60%. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/202305%20MRR.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/202305%20MRR.p...
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
There’s a lot of hobophobia in these comments. Please remember that we are all one missed paycheck from smoking meth and jerking off on the train
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't post flamebait and please don't use HN for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dllthomas 3y ago
Reading this while I ride BART for the first time in months.
arnonejoe 3y ago
If you are commuting to SF in the morning from the east bay, there's the community driven east bay casual carpool. There used to be a pickup point at most of the east bay bart stations and the common drop off is at the corner of Fremont and Howard in soma. When I used to commute in, there were a few people in line and it only took a minute or two for the next car to pull up. It's a little weird at first to jump in a car with two random strangers but I never felt unsafe. You get through bay bridge toll plaza in seconds as you are in the carpool lane. https://sfcasualcarpool.com/ https://sfcasualcarpool.com/
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Nobody uses this any more. It is effectively not possible to cross the bay with the casual carpool. For the same reason nobody rides BART: those trips are not necessary these days. https://www.kqed.org/news/11934347/will-casual-carpool-ever-come-back#:~:text=One%20very%20Bay%20Area%20method,they%20haven't%20come%20back https://www.kqed.org/news/11934347/will-casual-carpool-ever-....
obphuscate 3y ago
If no one else has mentioned it yet this headline is false/misleading. Ridership is down 30% not 70%. That is, all transit systems are operating at about 70% of nominal ridership.

88 points by armanhq 3y ago

As the article states, the reason why BART is so heavily impacted is because it was mostly designed as commuter rail. BART is unique in that historically it paid most of its costs in farebox revenue. While peak-hour (morning and evening commute) ridership is catching up again (BART publishes numbers so you can check the work here), usage outside of peak hours is at an all-time low because of the increase of WFH jobs. Since the rail alignment of BART can't be changed now, we'll probably settle on a new normal with BART. BART along the same alignment still moves 2x more people than the Bay Bridge does though, which is something to remember as non-users of BART clamor for its defunding.

ghaff 3y ago
When I looked recently, Boston was still at just over 50% of pre-COVID transit utilization though some commuter rail and subway lines were a bit better--and bus lines were a bit better yet. Anecdotally traffic at rush hour is at least as bad as ever so it at least appears that some people switched back to (or started) driving who hadn't before. Boston has had some well-publicized transit issues due to long-delayed transit maintenance but, at least short- to mid-term, it's lost a bunch pre-COVID commuting which has switched to driving.
danhak 3y ago
I’m a little confused by the reasoning here. You state that peak (commute) traffic is recovering but off-peak is still low, due to WFH? Wouldn’t WFH be impacting peak hours, with off-peak at all-time-low due to other things like leisure travel?
- junofan 3y ago
  Also if the decline is all WFH, why have private vehicle miles traveled recovered to pre-pandemic levels?
  - verall 3y ago
    Have they recovered in the bay? I thought the whole bay is still much less traffic due to WFH.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Is that miles total or commuting miles? If its miles total, I would chock it up to people doing more leisure travel, seeing family etc. I don't think RTO is in full swing in such force that its commuter miles, so I'd say you're seeing a big uptick in leisure travel right now, which makes sense, as more and more people are becoming comfortable with this again
  - TheBigSalad 3y ago
    Well it can't be ONLY wfh. I think they meant "primarily". But more commuters choosing to drive is impacted by fewer people driving in due to WFH. The traffic was light, so they drove. Now traffic is normal again.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  I'm not 100% on my reasoning, so I welcome alternate explanations. I suspect that a lot of part-time or odd-hour positions were most impacted by WFH. I'm guessing many of these have gone remote. Moreover, headway was cut back during the pandemic so folks who absolutely had to go into their positions may have invested in a car and don't feel the need to get back on transit because traffic off-peak is not too bad.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I’m going to guess that people still want to go to mixers and events and happy hours in SF and those still happen at the same time If thats when peak hours are
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      Speaking for myself, I rarely go to downtown SF now and go out mostly in downtown Oakland these days. The businesses are just as, if not more, vibrant and I have more transit options (BART, bus, BRT, bike) than being forced to take BART across the Bay. Before the pandemic SF downtown had a much more vibrant scene but Oakland has caught up if not exceeded the SF scene. This is just myself though.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    I’ve always thought that the jobs most “susceptible” to WFH are the traditional, 9-5 white collar jobs. Am interested to know if this is correct (outside of software industry, especially).
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      Just a theory, but white-collar jobs that now offer WFH as a perk probably offered flexible hours as a perk pre-COVID. This is conducive to commuting during off-peak hours.
      - PaulHoule 3y ago
        I worked for about a year for a startup based in L.A. where I was the only remote and it seemed they worked roughly 10:30-6:30 to shift their commutes off-peak.
- usrusr 3y ago
  I was wondering the same. Perhaps peak is all about people on fixed schedules like shop assistants amd the like, whereas those jobs that have switched to WFH Havre far mow flexible hours and many were using that flexibility was to avoid peak hours?
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  BART used to be so busy that people getting on in downtown stations would back-track to Civic Center/The Mission to actually get a seat across the bay. A similar amount of behavior existed of people doing anything to avoid a peak hour BART train. Now, if you're commuting in, the best times are during rush. BART numbers will always seem insanely low vs. pre-pandemic because they were unsustainable high back then.
  - simfree 3y ago
    Instead of treating public transit as an enterprise that should break even, we should consider what removing barriers to access through fare free public transit can do to serve our citizens more effectively. Many transit districts in Washington State have already gone fare free. Removing the barrier of paying helps drive more ridership, particularly on non-peak hours that traditionally see much lower ridership. The rail already exists, increasing it's utilization by will drive economic growth and help municipalities recover and heal the donut hole that was punched in many urban cores by the pandemic.
ars 3y ago
> BART along the same alignment still moves 2x more people than the Bay Bridge does though, which is something to remember as non-users of BART clamor for its defunding. How much does BART cost per year (or per decade) vs the Bay Bridge? A huge advantage of roads vs public transit is you don't need staff. (Maintenence is needed on both, but even then I suspect roads are cheaper to maintain.)
- WWLink 3y ago
  The bay bridge and golden gate bridge are perpetually being painted. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/visuals/bay-bridge-golden-gate-bridge-painters/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/visuals/bay-bridge...
- bombcar 3y ago
  Also the drivers fund the heavy moving equipment which is a huge subsidy for the roads. The BART has to pay for everything out of fares and sundry. The highway authority just has to build and maintain the road not the vehicles.
  - kimixa 3y ago
    True - the majority of the BART maintenance cost is the rolling stock not the track. How much does the average commuter spend on car maintenance and fuel? Or even the capital expenditure in the first place, if that commute is the difference between needing a(nother?) car for the household in the first place. And costs like the drivers and station workers is just split over the 1-per-car drivers across an equivalent road. I don't know anyone who enjoys that commute, likely arriving more stressed rather than less, and you can't read or prep for your real work in any way when driving. It's a common fallacy to ignore relatively small per-person costs, even if the total adds up to a massive amount due to the numbers of people.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  This is actually a fun one to point to. Replacing the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge happened recently, and has been one of the most expensive Californian infrastructure projects to date. It started with a price tag of $250 mil but it ended up costing $6.5 bil. In the meantime, BART has performed modifications on their tracks and has begun switching to new rolling stock, but it's been a lot cheaper than replacing the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge.
ramesh31 3y ago
>BART is unique in that historically it paid most of its costs in farebox revenue. Because it's expensive as hell, and the only sane option for commuting into the city during rush hour. A $10 round trip to go 5 miles from the east bay to downtown is absolutely crazy. Easily double the price of any other metro in the US.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Easily an order of magnitude more than Singapore.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Not if you compare to commuter rail. I'm further out but if you look at commuter rail parking, the train itself, and subway if I need to take it, I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day. (If I do it every day, the pass is a bit cheaper.) Yes, if I don't need to park at the subway and don't need to take commuter rail, it's about $5 but that's not really the norm for a lot of people coming in from the suburbs.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    I'm $35 to commute into Boston for the day Jesus! Between what stations? That is a crazy fare.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Commuter rail from N. Leominster to Porter is 24.50 round-trip + $4 for parking + ~$5 round-trip for the T. That's still cheaper than driving in for a day which would be about $50 round trip using IRS rates plus parking which could easily be $30+. (I'll drive in the evening or weekend when driving/parking are easier/quicker and the commuter rail really isn't very practical for an evening event.)
      - 3y ago
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
> BART along the same alignment still moves 2x more people than the Bay Bridge does though, which is something to remember as non-users of BART clamor for its defunding. Any source for that? For BART numbers: 1. Is it traffic across the bay? 2. Or total traffic? Edit: Digging up some data, I think it is #2, which seems a weird number to use. BART total per day: ~400k Bay Bridge per day: ~200k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland_Bay_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland_Bay_Brid... https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/June18FactSheet_v1.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/June18FactShee...

WheelsAtLarge 3y ago

I don't think this is unique to BART. My local news regularly highlights what an S-hole our subway system is. It has become a good place for the homeless to spend their day and no one has found a satisfactory fix for now. Right now you only ride the Subway if you absolutely don't have an alternative. Low ridership feeds on itself since low ridership leads to even less ridership and the accompanied decrease in the budget to run it.

rektide 3y ago
DC areas metro is facing a good 3/4 billion$ shortfall too, with federal support ending. We have the added shitshow of being a metro system spanning three different states. No one wants to pay, no one feels responsible; it's a mess.
- jandrese 3y ago
  Yeah, but they just jacked up the prices to encourage ridership. So it should be all good now.
  - ars 3y ago
    I rode the DC metro with family because I was warned about parking and traffic in DC. BIG MISTAKE! On the second day I took a car, and it took 1/3 the time, and 1/10 the cost EVEN with searching and paying for parking. Public transit should be free.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Farebox recovery is so damn low that I can only think the fares remain as an excuse to kick homeless and other undesirables off who aren’t technically breaking any rules or laws.
      - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        It's a pretty new topic in the US and studies are being conducted on this. AC Transit recently did one (I can link it if there's interest.) Indeed, farebox recovery is low enough that one of the main arguments for fare enforcement is to kick problem riders off. This is most impactful for operators who have to deal with the passengers in a way we riders do not.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gautamcgoel 3y ago

I live in Oakland and am frightened of taking BART after hearing many horror stories from friends. If I, a healthy man in his 20s, am afraid to take BART, imagine how intimidating it must be for women and the elderly.

loaph 3y ago
I road BART on Tuesday and it wasn't scary. You repeating what you heard might just create an echo chamber that amplifies something that isn't true and gets other people to believe it.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Which area did you ride it in?
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Counter anecdata, I rode Bart last night from 16th mission at ~9PM. First I waited 45mins for a train, then all the available seats on that car were covered in piles of trash, and panhandlers hassled the elderly couple next to me. I think BART is generally tolerable, but you're dismissing how obviously fucking terrible the BART experience can be and regularly is. A lot of people aren't willing to deal with that roulette, nor should they have to. Other transit systems aren't this bad.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
That's true. Even if I intellectualize a trip on BART as risk-free, it's still anxiety inducing and involves inconvenience I would volunteer to avoid if I had a car.
jeffbee 3y ago
Ok but this is not the reason. People don’t ride BART because half of working professionals now work at home and don’t need it. You can clearly see this in the fact that weekend BART riders is most of the way back to pre-COVID levels. Riders are not afraid of the system. It just doesn’t serve their weekday needs right now. By the way freeway shootings in the Bay Area tripled to more than one every day and plenty of people still use the freeway.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

Highway traffic on my commute never got back to as bad as it was pre-COVID. I imagine a lot of transit expansion projects won't make sense anymore. (Or less sense than they did before re: induced demand.)

akanet 3y ago

I think the analysis here tends a bit pessimistic. Bart just had its biggest day in years at Pride and its recovery is in line with the other agencies in the bay. If you're a fan of BART, I'd also like to invite you to the premiere of my movie about BART, playing at July 18th, 630pm at the Roxie. Here's a trailer: https://youtu.be/7eH3FfIGp8w https://youtu.be/7eH3FfIGp8w, and you can grab tickets at https://roxie.com/film/tunnel-vision https://roxie.com/film/tunnel-vision.

bquinlan 3y ago

In my social circle there is a perception that the BART is increasingly unsafe and some people who previously used the BART to commute from East Bay to SF are now driving. Their perception seems to be born out by the data: From the Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department [1] Aggravated Assault (2019): 112 Aggravated Assault (2022): 114 Relative increase (2019 -> 2022) adjusted for ridership: 114/112/0.3 = 3.39x [1] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-01%20Monthly%20Chief%27s%20Report%20CRB%2003012023.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-01%20Mont...

jandrese 3y ago
Is it possible that the amount of assault is relatively unrelated to total ridership? Like the number of criminal assholes in the community is about the same regardless of how many people use mass transit?
- jb12 3y ago
  The point is that with a constant amount of assaults, and fewer potential victims, you are more likely to be a victim.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    Only if you assume random victims of assault. That’s a pretty big assumption
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      How is this not probabilistic victim blaming?
      - 22c 3y ago
        I don't think it's victim blaming, it's a valid point. Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities. There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.

jandrese 3y ago

In my area the subway system has still not recovered from pre-pandemic ridership levels. It has made me wonder if the kind of people who rode the subway were more likely to work from home. But at the same the the roads are also less busy than they were, at least judging from the amount of congestion delays we experience on a day to day basis. This is good and bad. The good is that I can almost always get a seat on a train that used to be packed shoulder to shoulder standing room only. The bad is that the fare went from $3.10 to $5.50 each way.

Reason077 3y ago
> "I can almost always get a seat on a train that used to be packed" > "the fare went from $3.10 to $5.50 each way" I suspect there is a cause & effect relationship between these two observations. But which is which?
- jandrese 3y ago
  The fare increase happened about a week ago.

Reason077 3y ago

London Underground has reached over 90% of pre-pandemic passenger numbers as of April 2023 [1], and Transport for London expects to achieve an operating surplus in 2023-24. Notably, while peak-time commuter travel is still down on pre-pandemic levels, weekend passenger numbers on some routes has hit new all-time records. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65821633 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65821633

jrockway 3y ago

I think BART is the perfect storm of commuter railroads that aren't going to recover. San Francisco is tech heavy, and tech still seems pretty work-from-home heavy. A problem I always wondered about is whether or not BART was the right system for San Francisco, as it seems a lot of the big companies are out in the suburbs and never had public transportation. I walked from the Mountain View train station to the Googleplex once. Nobody does that twice. (These companies have their own transportation networks, which is kind of a shame for visitors.) I don't know what other cities look like. I've ridden the subway in New York on and off throughout and past the pandemic. This week was the first week that seemed normal to me. I don't commute, but have ridden the subway at commuting times, and it's definitely a little more chill than it used to be. (Easy to get a seat! But the train does eventually fill up as you get farther into Manhattan.) Looking at the commuter railroads, which I think is the fairest comparison to BART, they seem to be 50% of their all-time peak capacity. Not ideal, and I'm not convinced that 50% of the New York metro will be allowed to work from home forever. It will be interesting to see what congestion pricing does to people that used transit before the pandemic that drive now. When I worked in Manhattan, I had a friend that drove every day. He showed me the spreadsheet that he used to decide between a monthly pass on MNR versus driving, driving was ever so slightly cheaper. With a $20 a day charge to drive into the city coming in the next couple years, that might be the edge that the railroads need to make it a financially viable decision. I always thought we should make mass transit free and see how the numbers do. If 400,000 people drive into the city every day, and 2,000,000 people take the train, it's clear where the tax dollars should go. But I think as soon as you charge someone that first $1 to take the bus, pretty much everyone decided "fuck it, I'll just drive". The costs are a little more insidious, wear and tear on your vehicle, gas once a week, etc. People count that as free. (For example, do you ever turn on electrical appliances without thinking about the cost of electricity? That's driving.)

cyberlurker 3y ago
I had high hopes for NYC when they hired the new MTA guy before Covid. But then he got pushed out by Cuomo and it seems like he was prevented from carrying out the reforms needed to fix the subway properly. I highly doubt the state, which controls the budget, will ever make the subway free. I am doubtful they will even pony up the cash to perform the maintenance the system truly needs.

camel_gopher 3y ago

The core problem is assholes on the trains. People stopped riding because there’s either someone dangerous, someone crazy, or someone tweaked out. Literally on every Bart car, probably 2/3 of the time I ride. I end up using the Bart watch app to report this stuff every other time I ride. One guy tried to light a seat in fire. Another tailgated me through the gates and proceeded to push past me. Another was slumped over in a wheelchair (someone called 911 in that case). To their credit, the cops on the other end of the Bart watch app respond to almost everything submitted. They don’t have enough officers though to cover the whole system. How do you fix it? Add more cops. No ticket, no ride. Two cops on every train. One at every other station. Arrest anyone who is there without a ticket more than once. Arrest anyone jumping the gates. Enough with the nonsense.

bombcar 3y ago
The San Diego Trolley used (haven’t been there in 20 years) to be crawling with cops; you’d be hard pressed to do a longish ride without seeing at least one.and they responded fast. The latter being important; if you see a situation, report it, and see it handled it fades away as a memory; if each time you see it it never gets resolved and you just leave, it stays as a bad memory.
poisonarena 3y ago
> Two cops on every train. One at every other station. that will never ever happen. I remember 15 years ago reading about how much BART police get paid, was supposed to be way up there to the point people got upset about it
Karrot_Kream 3y ago
Cops are expensive. You can run a bus line all day for the cost of 3 officers. If you want cops everywhere, aside from the fact that the HN demographic is much more open to this than lower income folks, you're gonna have to deal with a much more expensive transit system which will cost taxpayers more. The disconnect is frustrating though. Middle and low income people do not trust the police. Don't believe me? Just listen in on any public meeting. Multiple community members and community groups call in to talk about how much they hate the police. Nobody calls in about how much they were helped by the police, unless they live in a wealthy district.

StickyRibbs 3y ago

I'm one who lives in the east bay (oakland/emeryville area) and don't use BART anymore because I'm WFH now. I also choose to drive into the city on weekends and off commute hours because the BART always has sketchy people, homeless, some weirdo moving up and down the carts and there's never enough people in the off hours to make it feel safe and worth it. It's a bummer because I'm down the street from Macarthur and would love to take it more often but I always have to be on guard which is not the travel experience I need in my life right now.

emmetG 3y ago

[flagged]

stevage 3y ago

Title is wrong. It is down 30%.

laurencerowe 3y ago
Measuring pixels on the chart it looks like BART is at 40% of pre-Covid levels (so down 60%). Public transit ridership nationally is at 65% and the MTA is at 70%.
jeffbee 3y ago
It's more like down 60%. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/202305%20MRR.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/202305%20MRR.p...

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

There’s a lot of hobophobia in these comments. Please remember that we are all one missed paycheck from smoking meth and jerking off on the train

dang 3y ago
Please don't post flamebait and please don't use HN for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dllthomas 3y ago

Reading this while I ride BART for the first time in months.

arnonejoe 3y ago

If you are commuting to SF in the morning from the east bay, there's the community driven east bay casual carpool. There used to be a pickup point at most of the east bay bart stations and the common drop off is at the corner of Fremont and Howard in soma. When I used to commute in, there were a few people in line and it only took a minute or two for the next car to pull up. It's a little weird at first to jump in a car with two random strangers but I never felt unsafe. You get through bay bridge toll plaza in seconds as you are in the carpool lane. https://sfcasualcarpool.com/ https://sfcasualcarpool.com/

jeffbee 3y ago
Nobody uses this any more. It is effectively not possible to cross the bay with the casual carpool. For the same reason nobody rides BART: those trips are not necessary these days. https://www.kqed.org/news/11934347/will-casual-carpool-ever-come-back#:~:text=One%20very%20Bay%20Area%20method,they%20haven't%20come%20back https://www.kqed.org/news/11934347/will-casual-carpool-ever-....

obphuscate 3y ago

If no one else has mentioned it yet this headline is false/misleading. Ridership is down 30% not 70%. That is, all transit systems are operating at about 70% of nominal ridership.