6 ms·

I'd say the BART administrators overpaying themselves is the bigger moneysink. Not to mention the spending 73M dollars to overhaul the gates to stop fare evader

I'd say the BART administrators overpaying themselves is the bigger moneysink. Not to mention the spending 73M dollars to overhaul the gates to stop fare evaders, when it SHOULD just be free for bay area residents.

darth_avocado 1y ago
The problem is that the Bay Area needs a single transit agency. All the agencies fighting each other for funding doesn’t help. It’s a much easier task to levy a minuscule tax on the entire region that pays for free public transit. If BART wants to do that at the moment, they can’t.
- trollbridge 1y ago
  I live in an area with a county-wide transit sales tax, and it just seems to result in them running a lot of empty buses around and building (and eventually abandoning) transit centres. Full price is $1.50 (which if paying cash means fiddling around with coins) except for the 50+ mile express routes which are $2.50.
  - darth_avocado 1y ago
    Well you could be in the Bay Area where you’d have 27 agencies, that still run a lot of empty routes and build useless and expensive transit centers, and then charge way more than what you have.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  The MTC is that organization for the Bay Area.
  - darth_avocado 1y ago
    Bay Area has 27 transit agencies and MTC has limited control over them beyond dictating how the state funds are allocated. Thats not what I’m talking about. What I’m suggesting is that the 27 agencies be one agency operationally and get funded as such. You’ll have much better outcomes.
    - jeffbee 1y ago
      MTC is not just concerned with allocating state funds, though. They administer RM2 and RM3 and the AB1107 sales tax, and they put on a trench coat to act at BATA collecting and using bridge tolls.
      - darth_avocado 1y ago
        But unless MTC is concerned with the operations, you cannot have decent outcomes. If BART has an over reliance on fare but MUNI doesn’t, a single agency would be better able to balance the budget. Similarly if one agency is spending more of the state funding on creating new routes while other is spending more on creating more frequent service on existing routes, MTC won’t be able to direct what needs to happen. If BART is running more often, but the bus I take to the BART station just cut service, I’m not taking BART anymore. Point of a single agency is not just to collect taxes. It is to make sure there are better outcomes, so that when you do need more taxes to fund public transit, you don’t get the pushback from the public.
        jeffbee 1y ago
        I guess I just don't believe in your thesis that larger scale leads to better outcomes. Wouldn't we just end up with Caltrans Lite Edition, spending all the money on car junk? BART already has this problem, with two elected directors who are more likely the chew off their own legs than to ever ride BART.
- hedora 1y ago
  They also need to get the roads, busses and ferries on board with this plan. The goal (by law) should be twofold: 1) increase the number of people with a 90th percentile commute under 15, 30 and 60 minutes. (i.e., improve quality of life and encourage economic growth) 2) sharply reduce the average CO2-equivalent emissions of each commuter. The current statewide policy (by law) is to reduce commute miles. In practice, this means intentionally sabotaging commute corridors, which slows economic growth (fewer available workers and fewer reachable jobs) reduces quality of life and increases CO2 emissions (due to repeated idling and hard acceleration).
SllX 1y ago
> when it SHOULD just be free for bay area residents. Absolutely not.
- scarmig 1y ago
  I think there should be options for low income residents to ride for free or heavily discounted rates (which exists now). But it's all about implementation: simply letting anyone jump on turns the system into a madhouse. Making sure everyone pays (even if through a government issued pass) and works with the system helps balance equity considerations with maintaining safety and cleanliness.
  - SllX 1y ago
    BART has several discounts: https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts Discounts are fine. Free riding isn’t.
    - edoceo 1y ago
      Why is free public transport bad? Could get even more folk out of their cars, or expand employment opportunities.
      - omnimus 1y ago
        Because socialism.
      - SllX 1y ago
        I answered more thoroughly in response to your sibling comment.
      - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
        Because the tube will be filled with the unwashed masses
      - ianburrell 1y ago
        The price is not the barrier for most people using transit. The service reliability and availability is more important. Would you rather pay fare for frequent bus or wait around for free fares?
tekno45 1y ago
bart doesn't get to decide its free.
jedberg 1y ago
> when it SHOULD just be free for bay area residents. There was a study done on this. It turns out that the median income of someone riding under the Bay Bridge in BART is higher than someone driving a car across it. In other words the wealthier people are using BART. So if you made it free, you'd be subsidizing the wealthy.
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  That’s a very wrong conclusion to draw from the study. If median income of someone riding the bart is higher than someone driving, it could also mean that they drive because it is cheaper to do so. If you make it free, they would probably ride BART too, making it more accessible and equitable.
  - jedberg 1y ago
    The study was more in depth than that. It found that BART goes to more places that wealthy people go (financial district, SOMA, etc) than where poorer people need to go.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      That makes perfect sense. Poor people are attracted to cheaper real estate (residential and commercially). Real estate is cheaper because it is less accessible and convenient. One area is concentrated and the other is decentralized.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Please forgive me for the ignorance, but is there some significance of “under the bay bridge” for this study, or did they just pick it arbitrarily? It seems like picking a point arbitrarily like that could introduce some skews.
  - Me1000 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's just being used as a turn of phrase here. Under the bridge means commuters are riding BART, over the bridge means they're driving.

darth_avocado 1y ago

The problem is that the Bay Area needs a single transit agency. All the agencies fighting each other for funding doesn’t help. It’s a much easier task to levy a minuscule tax on the entire region that pays for free public transit. If BART wants to do that at the moment, they can’t.

trollbridge 1y ago
I live in an area with a county-wide transit sales tax, and it just seems to result in them running a lot of empty buses around and building (and eventually abandoning) transit centres. Full price is $1.50 (which if paying cash means fiddling around with coins) except for the 50+ mile express routes which are $2.50.
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  Well you could be in the Bay Area where you’d have 27 agencies, that still run a lot of empty routes and build useless and expensive transit centers, and then charge way more than what you have.
jeffbee 1y ago
The MTC is that organization for the Bay Area.
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  Bay Area has 27 transit agencies and MTC has limited control over them beyond dictating how the state funds are allocated. Thats not what I’m talking about. What I’m suggesting is that the 27 agencies be one agency operationally and get funded as such. You’ll have much better outcomes.
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    MTC is not just concerned with allocating state funds, though. They administer RM2 and RM3 and the AB1107 sales tax, and they put on a trench coat to act at BATA collecting and using bridge tolls.
    - darth_avocado 1y ago
      But unless MTC is concerned with the operations, you cannot have decent outcomes. If BART has an over reliance on fare but MUNI doesn’t, a single agency would be better able to balance the budget. Similarly if one agency is spending more of the state funding on creating new routes while other is spending more on creating more frequent service on existing routes, MTC won’t be able to direct what needs to happen. If BART is running more often, but the bus I take to the BART station just cut service, I’m not taking BART anymore. Point of a single agency is not just to collect taxes. It is to make sure there are better outcomes, so that when you do need more taxes to fund public transit, you don’t get the pushback from the public.
      - jeffbee 1y ago
        I guess I just don't believe in your thesis that larger scale leads to better outcomes. Wouldn't we just end up with Caltrans Lite Edition, spending all the money on car junk? BART already has this problem, with two elected directors who are more likely the chew off their own legs than to ever ride BART.
hedora 1y ago
They also need to get the roads, busses and ferries on board with this plan. The goal (by law) should be twofold: 1) increase the number of people with a 90th percentile commute under 15, 30 and 60 minutes. (i.e., improve quality of life and encourage economic growth) 2) sharply reduce the average CO2-equivalent emissions of each commuter. The current statewide policy (by law) is to reduce commute miles. In practice, this means intentionally sabotaging commute corridors, which slows economic growth (fewer available workers and fewer reachable jobs) reduces quality of life and increases CO2 emissions (due to repeated idling and hard acceleration).

SllX 1y ago

> when it SHOULD just be free for bay area residents. Absolutely not.

scarmig 1y ago
I think there should be options for low income residents to ride for free or heavily discounted rates (which exists now). But it's all about implementation: simply letting anyone jump on turns the system into a madhouse. Making sure everyone pays (even if through a government issued pass) and works with the system helps balance equity considerations with maintaining safety and cleanliness.
- SllX 1y ago
  BART has several discounts: https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts Discounts are fine. Free riding isn’t.
  - edoceo 1y ago
    Why is free public transport bad? Could get even more folk out of their cars, or expand employment opportunities.
    - omnimus 1y ago
      Because socialism.
    - SllX 1y ago
      I answered more thoroughly in response to your sibling comment.
    - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
      Because the tube will be filled with the unwashed masses
    - ianburrell 1y ago
      The price is not the barrier for most people using transit. The service reliability and availability is more important. Would you rather pay fare for frequent bus or wait around for free fares?

tekno45 1y ago

bart doesn't get to decide its free.

jedberg 1y ago

> when it SHOULD just be free for bay area residents. There was a study done on this. It turns out that the median income of someone riding under the Bay Bridge in BART is higher than someone driving a car across it. In other words the wealthier people are using BART. So if you made it free, you'd be subsidizing the wealthy.

darth_avocado 1y ago
That’s a very wrong conclusion to draw from the study. If median income of someone riding the bart is higher than someone driving, it could also mean that they drive because it is cheaper to do so. If you make it free, they would probably ride BART too, making it more accessible and equitable.
- jedberg 1y ago
  The study was more in depth than that. It found that BART goes to more places that wealthy people go (financial district, SOMA, etc) than where poorer people need to go.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    That makes perfect sense. Poor people are attracted to cheaper real estate (residential and commercially). Real estate is cheaper because it is less accessible and convenient. One area is concentrated and the other is decentralized.
bee_rider 1y ago
Please forgive me for the ignorance, but is there some significance of “under the bay bridge” for this study, or did they just pick it arbitrarily? It seems like picking a point arbitrarily like that could introduce some skews.
- Me1000 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's just being used as a turn of phrase here. Under the bridge means commuters are riding BART, over the bridge means they're driving.