←back to thread

A computer upgrade shut down BART

(www.bart.gov)
232 points ksajadi | 1 comments | 05 Sep 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
ninetyninenine ◴[05 Sep 25 18:21 UTC] No.45141839[source]▶
I mean despite it's history the snark is well deserved. With so many companies and people in the bay paying taxes, where the hell does all the money go?

Interesting, tidbit you added here. But snark is needed for this situation.

replies(7): >>45142025 #>>45142027 #>>45142042 #>>45142069 #>>45142101 #>>45144445 #>>45147215 #
octernion ◴[05 Sep 25 18:36 UTC] No.45142027[source]▶
your tax money broadly speaking doesn't go to BART; it's massively underfunded. not sure why they are the target of the snark.
replies(3): >>45142137 #>>45145520 #>>45145650 #
nradov ◴[05 Sep 25 18:45 UTC] No.45142137[source]▶
Under funded relative to what? What would the optimal amount of funding be? Are there ways that BART could cut costs to free up budget for IT upgrades?

I'm not trying to be snarky, it's just that for regular citizens who don't have time to attend BART BoD and committee meetings it's almost impossible to tell whether existing money is being wisely spent. So people get the impression that taxes are going up while service quality declines and assume the money must be going into someone's pocket.

replies(2): >>45142223 #>>45144074 #
lokar ◴[05 Sep 25 18:53 UTC] No.45142223[source]▶
In nearly all of the US there is an unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) debate about to what extent public transit should get a subsidy vs pay for itself.

The dominant position (even in CA) has been no or little subsidy.

replies(2): >>45142316 #>>45142443 #
flerchin ◴[05 Sep 25 19:12 UTC] No.45142443[source]▶
In no way does BART pay for itself. 22% of their operating costs are covered by fares. Public transit is an amenity paid for by taxes. Private transport also has its own subsidy, but it's not even close.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/BART_FY24%2...

replies(4): >>45142876 #>>45142901 #>>45143356 #>>45143863 #
abeppu ◴[05 Sep 25 20:42 UTC] No.45143356[source]▶
I think that's a misleading statement:

- Prior to the pandemic, BART got >60% of its operating costs from riders (p9 in your linked doc)

- Ridership is still way down relative to 2019 even though costs are up in absolute terms

- Even from 2020 data, BART was hitting 50% https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/most-profitable-public-tr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#United_...

The subsidy in BART is higher than anyone would like it now, but I do think that's still a transient response to the pandemic; either more people will have to eventually go back to riding public transit, or we'll need to drop the emergency funding it's been receiving.

replies(1): >>45143613 #
1. flerchin ◴[05 Sep 25 21:05 UTC] No.45143613[source]▶
Well I wasn't trying to be misleading. I do agree with what you've said wrt historical ridership, but it's been 6 years. BART docs imply that RTO is driving ridership back. We may be in a new normal wrt remote working patterns. Dropping emergency funding would, imo, lead to a death spiral of reduced maintenance and service which further reduces ridership. We can have nice things, paid for by taxes.