3 ms·

> 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 Brid

> 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.
hedora 1y ago
So, force the rich people to use the bridge, and increase commute times for everyone? Seems like a much better plan than synchronizing and expanding the train networks so they cover more neighborhoods in all parts of the bay (except Marin, of course…)
ryanmcbride 1y ago
I don't care it should be free.
- jedberg 1y ago
  Yes, let's ignore all data saying that it being free would make everything worse and not address any of your concerns about the environment or helping poor people.

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.

hedora 1y ago

So, force the rich people to use the bridge, and increase commute times for everyone? Seems like a much better plan than synchronizing and expanding the train networks so they cover more neighborhoods in all parts of the bay (except Marin, of course…)

ryanmcbride 1y ago

I don't care it should be free.

jedberg 1y ago
Yes, let's ignore all data saying that it being free would make everything worse and not address any of your concerns about the environment or helping poor people.