BART struggling to keep up with demand (Los Angeles, Oakland: live in, dangerous)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sav858

I never hear reports of violence on BART trains, at least not like the constant stabbings on Muni.

What are you talking about?! Have you even ridden the BART? It happens all the time.

Just last year a pregnant woman got punched for her laptop by two Oakland thugs traveling on the Pittsburg/Concord train:

Pregnant Woman Attacked, Robbed On BART Train; 2 Arrested « CBS San Francisco

That would never happen on a Metrolink train because not only is there a Metrolink officer on every train, but there are occasionally L.A Sheriff's on board with drug sniffing dogs.

Metrolink vs BART based on travelling experience and safety, Metrolink is a HUGE winner for me.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So we see here that BART carries 10 times as many people on 4 times less miles of track. Metrolink seems like a colossal waste of money by comparison.

BART Capital Budget shortfall: $7.5 BILLION Dollars
Metrolink Capital Budget shortfall: $11.74 Million Dollars

You were saying?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Do you have any proof that's why they made their trains so comfortable and accessible? That sounds like some loony personal theory to me not based on any facts.

All I know is BART as a travel experience is noisy, smelly, and sometimes dangerous depending on the people who board the train.

Someone travelling from Santa Ana to L.A will most likely have a nice pleasant experience.

Someone travelling from Fremont to S.F (similar distance) will most likely have a much less pleasant experience.

It's not like BART is all that much cheaper either but the experience definitely is.

That statement doesn't even make any sense and you clearly missed my point. You talk about how crowded BART is and how Metrolink isn't, well clearly when you carry far less passengers on larger trains you won't have crowding issues. Get it now? No transit agency designs their system to carry fewer passengers.

Considering how many people have died on Metrolink compared to BART in the last 10 years I'd say Metrolink is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than BART will ever be. I don't recall 25 people dying in one accident on any BART train like Metrolink.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

BART Capital Budget shortfall: $7.5 BILLION Dollars
Metrolink Capital Budget shortfall: $11.74 Million Dollars

You were saying?

And your source for this is?

[rkwalton]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

The times I couldn't get in was when I was getting on at MacArthur. It was the SFO trains coming from Pittsburg that were always worse. The trains originating from Richmond are usually not quite as bad as many of those people get on a Fremont train and transfer to the SFO trains at MacArthur. This isn't to say the Richmond trains aren't bad. They get busy right at Del Norte. Become packed at Plaza and standing room by North Berkeley. If this train is late, then it becomes too packed for everyone at MacArthur and some don't get on.

Yeah, since I work from home, I never really dealt with it. I'd always time my rides after rush hour because bikes are forbidden during rush hour. My stops in Berkeley were Downtown Berkeley and, when I moved, Rockridge. I didn't bother with Ashby, which was actually closer, as the AC transit service at that station sucks.

If people aren't able to get on then BART needs to do something.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

BART Capital Budget shortfall: $7.5 BILLION Dollars
Metrolink Capital Budget shortfall: $11.74 Million Dollars

You were saying?

Fare Box Recovery Ratio
BART: 64%
Metrolink: 46%

source: NTD - Home


BART fares cover far more of it's operating costs than Metrolink does.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sav858

I don't recall 25 people dying in one accident on any BART train like Metrolink.

Again what does that have to do with criminals INSIDE the train? Did they cause the most deadly accident in Metrolink's history? That's as relevant as bringing up the 150+ people who have jumped in front of a BART train to commit suicide which is less than Metrolink.

Here's how a typical BART train ride looks after rush hour:

Fight on Bart! - YouTube

Not to mention the amount of robberies at the stations themselves:

richmond bart fight - YouTube

It's clear which experience is safer.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Again what does that have to do with criminals INSIDE the train? Did they cause the most deadly accident in Metrolink's history? That's as relevant as bringing up the 150+ people who have jumped in front of a BART train to commit suicide which is less than Metrolink.


It's clear which experience is safer.

It has to do with overall SAFETY. FAR MORE people have DIED on Metrolink trains than BART. You're chance of being killed on Metrolink is higher than BART.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sav858

Fare Box Recovery Ratio
BART: 64%
Metrolink: 46%

source: NTD - Home


BART fares cover far more of it's operating costs than Metrolink does.

It doesn't matter how much it recovers when it's capital shortfall is in the BILLIONS as compared to the millions. BART hasn't been able to cover its expenses for decades, that's why the trains are so noisy, smelly, and outdated.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sav858

You're chance of being killed on Metrolink is higher than BART.

Do you have calculations to back up that claim based on amount of trains, routes, and operating history?