←back to thread

232 points ksajadi | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Buuntu ◴[] No.45141006[source]
Everyone here blaming BART and bureaucracy for being inefficient when in reality it's starved for funding due to our own voting (and zoning preventing housing/badly needed ridership near transit stops). Yes it's expensive to build transit just like it's expensive to build anything in America, which we should fix but that is not unique to BART.

It's quite possible the system will collapse next year if we don't pass increased taxes to fund it in 2026 https://www.bart.gov/about/financials/crisis.

Just last year we failed to pass a common sense bill to make it so we only need a 51% majority for transit bills in the future, indicative of how opposed we still are to transit in the Bay Area https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-proposi....

Not to mention the fact that Silicon Valley opted out of BART and chose car dependent sprawl instead.

So let's be clear, most of the issues with BART are due to anti-transit and suburban voters starving it of support.

replies(8): >>45141083 #>>45141205 #>>45141340 #>>45141486 #>>45141881 #>>45142251 #>>45142641 #>>45144091 #
dilyevsky ◴[] No.45141205[source]
Hilarious that from 2020 and to this day ridership has collapsed but BART operating expenses went up despite that and all the efficiencies they talk about in your link. Kind of tells you everything you need to know about where the money is actually going...

Just to compare with another expensive city - BART serves 1/20th of London's Tube rides while operating on 1/5th of the Tube's budget.

replies(3): >>45141434 #>>45142509 #>>45142620 #
Buuntu ◴[] No.45141434[source]
That is mostly a zoning issue, have you seen the density around Tube stations? Compare that to the density around half of the BART stations which are big parking lots surrounded by single family houses. Of course it's cheaper to run a transit system in a city with twice the population density and population in the metro area.

Costs are an America issue, not a BART issue: https://transitcosts.com/new-data/

BART is one of the most cost efficient systems in the US: https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1d27dvo/us_cost_pe.... It's so efficient that pre-pandemic it got the majority of its funding through fares, not taxes.

By the way it costs exorbitant amounts to build highways too and you don't see people criticizing all of our highways around the area do you.

So quite frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

replies(3): >>45141599 #>>45142123 #>>45148705 #
jen20 ◴[] No.45142123[source]
> have you seen the density around Tube stations?

As a former tube-commuter and occasional BART-user, I'd wager that possibly a majority of the commuting trips in zone 1 are taking people from a mainline train station to somewhere, and then back in the evening. That option barely even exists in the Bay Area - indeed every time I look at how to use Caltrain from SFO I give up and rent a car instead.

replies(2): >>45142398 #>>45142520 #
1. simoncion ◴[] No.45142520[source]
> ...every time I look at how to use Caltrain from SFO I give up and rent a car instead.

Why? Last I checked, it's

   * Depart SFO via BART
   * Get off BART at the first stop, Millbrae
   * Exit BART and enter Caltrain
Is there some complication I'm missing (other than the fact that neither BART nor Caltrain are 24/7 services)?
replies(2): >>45142853 #>>45155082 #
2. terinjokes ◴[] No.45142853[source]
Depending on the year and day of the week it also involved a transfer at San Bruno.

Fortunately they've since reverted back to always running to Millbrae from the airport.

replies(1): >>45155075 #
3. ◴[] No.45155075[source]
4. jen20 ◴[] No.45155082[source]
The complication is not physically how to do it, but that the timing is not arranged to line up well, resulting in excessive waits.