3 ms·

>2) we want public transit to be exclusionary on a fee-basis to exclude people who generally will not be able to pay for it on their own in order to avoid trage

by nartho 1y ago

>2) we want public transit to be exclusionary on a fee-basis to exclude people who generally will not be able to pay for it on their own in order to avoid tragedy of the commons situations which actually suppress ridership by people who can afford to pay the fee: vagrants, criminals and people who smoke crack on the trains. These demographics have no issue jumping the gates/going through with someone else, are already present, and will be whether the ride is $1 or $1000. You're just excluding the honest people who can't afford it. I also don't know what makes you think that criminals have to be poor and can't afford a ride. > I could walk off MUNI and just casually catch every type of person from every type of walk of life, and by that I mean mostly regular commuters with decent paying jobs, just casually free loading because they could. I'm envious of your ability to access people's bank accounts and occupations by looking at them.

SllX 1y ago
> These demographics have no issue jumping the gates/going through with someone else, are already present, and will be whether the ride is $1 or $1000. You're just excluding the honest people who can't afford it. I also don't know what makes you think that criminals have to be poor and can't afford a ride. Something you may have missed in this discussion is that BART has hardened its most frequently-used gates and is still in the process of hardening all of them with new fare gates and other infrastructure. This has noticeably decreased the frequency in which people are casually engaging in theft of service. In all of Downtown San Francisco with the new fare gates installed, you can't just step over them anymore, nor is circumventing them a subtle and quick matter. > I'm envious of your ability to access people's bank accounts and occupations by looking at them. It doesn't require magic to look at someone and assess their clothes, the items they're carrying and general hygiene and clock that with the time of day, or even figure out what their occupation is: mostly office workers and others who work in downtown San Francisco. Most of BART's passengers are commuters with jobs after all, they're not just riding it for fun which is what you would expect from a commuter rail system. Paying for transportation whether that is the bridge toll or the BART ticket is each person's responsibility, and notably there are tax incentives for public transportation within the Bay Area already, and as I noted up thread, plenty of discounts.
- simoncion 1y ago
  > Paying for transportation whether that is the bridge toll or the BART ticket is each person's responsibility... Sure. And you can do that with taxes, rather than charging at point-of-use. I mean, we (very wisely) subsidize the absolute hell out of road construction and maintenance, and noone bats an eye. Folks get weirdly up in arms when the method of transportation being subsidized doesn't require a (typically) many-thousand-dollar up-front investment to use.
  - SllX 1y ago
    > Sure. And you can do that with taxes, rather than charging at point-of-use. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. As I addressed way above this comment chain: > 1) it’s a funding source for transit agencies which are already facing shortfalls and at the mercy of voters for any tax increases or bonds. Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions in e.g. the directions of Tracy/Stockton, Santa Cruz, Vallejo or an in-fill Diablo Valley run from Martinez to Pleasanton and provide more comprehensive coverage. It’s also nice to keep it segregated from having to compete within the legislature and on the ballot with highways. > I mean, we (very wisely) subsidize the absolute hell out of road construction and maintenance, and noone bats an eye. Folks get weirdly up in arms when the method of transportation being subsidized doesn't require a (typically) many-thousand-dollar up-front investment to use. We also subsidize the hell out of BART and public transportation. There isn’t a single mode of transportation within and between cities that isn’t heavily subsidized by the government. Maybe a smattering of fully private roads somewhere. Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes (e.g. vehicle registration and fuel taxes), nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART.
    - simoncion 1y ago
      > Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you shouldn't. > We also subsidize the hell out of BART... For ages, BART crowed about how it got like 80->95% of its operating expenses from rider fares. If what you're saying is true, then one or more of the following must be true: 1) The BART directors were lying to the public 2) This change in funding mix happened when BART ridership fell off a cliff as folks fled the SF Bay Area 3) Rider fares have never actually been expected to cover system expansions to any significant degree If #3 is true, then it seems to me that talking about fares in conjunction with future system expansions is totally pointless and a waste of time. > Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions... And yet we frequently build new roadways without any significant usage-based funding. > Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes... Duh. > ...nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART. Nope, not in isolation. Of course not. > As I addressed way above this comment chain:... As you also said way above this comment chain: > [I support suppressing] ridership by people who can['t] afford to pay the fee: vagrants, criminals and people who smoke crack on the trains. On this, we disagree. I'm going to be kind and assume that the important part of your expressed concern is crime. The criminals are on trains with well-known stops; they're simply not going to force their way off of the train between stops. Like many other municipal railways BART has its own police force. Deploy the BART cops and get the bad guys at the next stop. You might argue that this will be expensive, or that it will be ineffective. I'd argue that criminals have been able to jump over the faregates for nearly fifty years, so this thing we're discussing isn't a new problem.

by nartho 1y ago

SllX 1y ago

> These demographics have no issue jumping the gates/going through with someone else, are already present, and will be whether the ride is $1 or $1000. You're just excluding the honest people who can't afford it. I also don't know what makes you think that criminals have to be poor and can't afford a ride. Something you may have missed in this discussion is that BART has hardened its most frequently-used gates and is still in the process of hardening all of them with new fare gates and other infrastructure. This has noticeably decreased the frequency in which people are casually engaging in theft of service. In all of Downtown San Francisco with the new fare gates installed, you can't just step over them anymore, nor is circumventing them a subtle and quick matter. > I'm envious of your ability to access people's bank accounts and occupations by looking at them. It doesn't require magic to look at someone and assess their clothes, the items they're carrying and general hygiene and clock that with the time of day, or even figure out what their occupation is: mostly office workers and others who work in downtown San Francisco. Most of BART's passengers are commuters with jobs after all, they're not just riding it for fun which is what you would expect from a commuter rail system. Paying for transportation whether that is the bridge toll or the BART ticket is each person's responsibility, and notably there are tax incentives for public transportation within the Bay Area already, and as I noted up thread, plenty of discounts.

simoncion 1y ago
> Paying for transportation whether that is the bridge toll or the BART ticket is each person's responsibility... Sure. And you can do that with taxes, rather than charging at point-of-use. I mean, we (very wisely) subsidize the absolute hell out of road construction and maintenance, and noone bats an eye. Folks get weirdly up in arms when the method of transportation being subsidized doesn't require a (typically) many-thousand-dollar up-front investment to use.
- SllX 1y ago
  > Sure. And you can do that with taxes, rather than charging at point-of-use. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. As I addressed way above this comment chain: > 1) it’s a funding source for transit agencies which are already facing shortfalls and at the mercy of voters for any tax increases or bonds. Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions in e.g. the directions of Tracy/Stockton, Santa Cruz, Vallejo or an in-fill Diablo Valley run from Martinez to Pleasanton and provide more comprehensive coverage. It’s also nice to keep it segregated from having to compete within the legislature and on the ballot with highways. > I mean, we (very wisely) subsidize the absolute hell out of road construction and maintenance, and noone bats an eye. Folks get weirdly up in arms when the method of transportation being subsidized doesn't require a (typically) many-thousand-dollar up-front investment to use. We also subsidize the hell out of BART and public transportation. There isn’t a single mode of transportation within and between cities that isn’t heavily subsidized by the government. Maybe a smattering of fully private roads somewhere. Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes (e.g. vehicle registration and fuel taxes), nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART.
  - simoncion 1y ago
    > Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you shouldn't. > We also subsidize the hell out of BART... For ages, BART crowed about how it got like 80->95% of its operating expenses from rider fares. If what you're saying is true, then one or more of the following must be true: 1) The BART directors were lying to the public 2) This change in funding mix happened when BART ridership fell off a cliff as folks fled the SF Bay Area 3) Rider fares have never actually been expected to cover system expansions to any significant degree If #3 is true, then it seems to me that talking about fares in conjunction with future system expansions is totally pointless and a waste of time. > Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions... And yet we frequently build new roadways without any significant usage-based funding. > Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes... Duh. > ...nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART. Nope, not in isolation. Of course not. > As I addressed way above this comment chain:... As you also said way above this comment chain: > [I support suppressing] ridership by people who can['t] afford to pay the fee: vagrants, criminals and people who smoke crack on the trains. On this, we disagree. I'm going to be kind and assume that the important part of your expressed concern is crime. The criminals are on trains with well-known stops; they're simply not going to force their way off of the train between stops. Like many other municipal railways BART has its own police force. Deploy the BART cops and get the bad guys at the next stop. You might argue that this will be expensive, or that it will be ineffective. I'd argue that criminals have been able to jump over the faregates for nearly fifty years, so this thing we're discussing isn't a new problem.