Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because if they had to run it profitably (or at least to break even when considering reinvestment into their infrastructure), they'd A) never get good enough employees when paying BMR wages and B) they'd never get any traffic, because the price they'd have to charge in order to afford the repairs to the current line and expand the service would price out everyone from using it and we'd end up with a more choked Bay Bridge than it already is at rush hour.
Heck, as it is, if I used BART daily to get to work (I only use it 3 days a week-ish currently), I'd be paying around $260 a month, which is more than most compact car payments. How much more can BART charge before demand is no longer inelastic? The cost of car ownership in the city isn't cheap, but in certain parts it's not impossible to find street parking and pay around that in gas and bridge tolls as it stands.
I can only imagine if Embarcadero to Dublin/Pleasanton become upwards of $10-15 each way how that would affect BART demand. At $600 a month, you aren't going to find as many riders.
Public transportation services need subsidies now as a result. The Chicago MTA is going through similar hardships with aging trains and elevated track lines, and lack of funding. They have less expensive issues with regard to expansion and maintenance though - they don't have a giant pool of water in between their system.
And that is why public transportation is not worth investing in. Let people pay the actual costs, I bet the lavious Union contracts would not have been given out if the trough of public subsadies was not there to go back to. Bart trains don't even need an operator, they can run by themselves, tell me again why someone is paid 80k plus benefits to monitor the doors opening and closing?
And that is why public transportation is not worth investing in. Let people pay the actual costs, I bet the lavious Union contracts would not have been given out if the trough of public subsadies was not there to go back to. Bart trains don't even need an operator, they can run by themselves, tell me again why someone is paid 80k plus benefits to monitor the doors opening and closing?
And you think the Bay Bridge was a money maker? Investing in public transportation is VITAL in an area like SF/Oakland because there's only so much land mass to put roads. The current roads can't handle the existing demand. Where do you suppose we put the 350k daily commuters who already use BART?
BART trains initially didn't need operators, but they most certainly do these days. There are parts of track that are aging and thus speed adjustments in manual mode are required in order to safely pass (see recent articles about the area between Fruitvale and Coliseum being closed for wood slat replacement on weekends starting last weekend). Additionally, I can attest to at least a dozen situations where the operator had to exit the train to remove debris from the track. The last time it happened to me was a few months ago near the Orinda station, and a 2x4 was blocking the track. The operator had to get out and remove it. They also have a safety role as well.
If you want to hoot and holler about the TSA, I will stand and scream with you, but this area needs public transportation to be up-to-date in order to continue to grow.
And you think the Bay Bridge was a money maker? Investing in public transportation is VITAL in an area like SF/Oakland because there's only so much land mass to put roads. The current roads can't handle the existing demand. Where do you suppose we put the 350k daily commuters who already use BART?
BART trains initially didn't need operators, but they most certainly do these days. There are parts of track that are aging and thus speed adjustments in manual mode are required in order to safely pass (see recent articles about the area between Fruitvale and Coliseum being closed for wood slat replacement on weekends starting last weekend). Additionally, I can attest to at least a dozen situations where the operator had to exit the train to remove debris from the track. The last time it happened to me was a few months ago near the Orinda station, and a 2x4 was blocking the track. The operator had to get out and remove it. They also have a safety role as well.
If you want to hoot and holler about the TSA, I will stand and scream with you, but this area needs public transportation to be up-to-date in order to continue to grow.
I'm not saying we don't need transportation. I'm saying let the riders pay for the ongoing costs. I am even fine with footing the bill for it being built, but it should be at least budget neutral, now it is only half paid for by fees. Reduces trains during the day and late night, increase ticket fees and restructure labor rates for non skilled possessions like train operators and we can work our way to a balanced budget. The problem is the silly wages being paid, it is similar to the auto industry, just now the people subsidize continuously so they have no reason to make any tough decisions.
People will still ride, to them it is better than sitting in traffic.
The roads would be fully funded by gas tax and DMV fees if the money wasn't bejng inserted into the general fund to pay for pet projects and to subsidize the costs of public transportation.
The Bay Area used all it's political might to get a new bridge... retrofitting the old one would have expedient and cheap...
The choice was made to ensure that something worthy of the Bay would be created as one story said.
In the old days the key system, inner city rail that went to Sacramento and North paid their own way...
Why is it public transit is incapable of this today?
Why are roads incapable of paying for themselves completely on their own? It's a society issue (based on where we decide we want to put our tax money), not a public-transit issue. I don't know of any publicly-run system that sustains itself purely on tolls/fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
The roads would be fully funded by gas tax and DMV fees if the money wasn't bejng inserted into the general fund to pay for pet projects and to subsidize the costs of public transportation.
This is not true, and hasn't been true for a very long time (if ever?). The gas tax and DMV fees would have be astronomically higher to even come close to paying the full (i.e. real) cost of roads.
I know people like to harp on public transit for being expensive, but in these conversations its often ignored how expensive the rest of our infrastructure truly is (that is not paid for through use fees). It's easy to see why...you can't directly see how much a user puts into public transit via their fare. It's much more difficult to calculate the true cost of roads (which is very high).
With your logic, people that don't own cars and only take public transit shouldn't have to pay for roads (which would be impossible because the money needed comes out of taxes). It's just as unreasonable to demand that public transit "pay for itself" as it is roads pay for themselves.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 04-09-2015 at 09:59 AM..
Probably true for today but it was not always like this... especially in the Bay Area that had an extensive system... a person could travel by "Street Car" from SF to Sacramento CA... part of the old line is still in service as a living history display...
The street where I live was installed and maintained by the homeowners... wasn't supposed to be this way... just turned out not to meet city standards and in many ways is better because city streets have potholes and mine doesn't.
The street where my parents lived was last paved in 1957 by the developer... each home has a direct benefit and has been paying taxes almost 60 years without a penny spent from city coffers... city said it is on a 100 year repave schedule...
This is different that spending tax money in Oakland so someone from Pittsburg can take BART to San Francisco...
Just about all large Public Transit projects were sold saying Taxpayer money was needed to build the system and tolls from riders would pay to operate the system... for some reason it did not work out this way...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 04-09-2015 at 10:08 AM..
Probably true for today but it was not always like this... especially in the Bay Area that had an extensive system... a person could travel by "Street Car" from SF to Sacramento CA... part of the old line is still in service as a living history display...
The street where I live was installed and maintained by the homeowners... wasn't supposed to be this way... just turned out not to meet city standards and in many ways is better because city streets have potholes and mine doesn't.
The street where my parents lived was last paved in 1957 by the developer... each home has a direct benefit and has been paying taxes almost 60 years without a penny spent from city coffers... city said it is on a 100 year repave schedule...
This is different that spending tax money in Oakland so someone from Pittsburg can take BART to San Francisco...
Just about all large Public Transit projects were sold saying Taxpayer money was needed to build the system and tolls from riders would pay to operate the system... for some reason it did not work out this way...
That may all be true, but things just aren't the way they used to be. Roads used to pay for themselves a lot more than they do now (gas taxes and DMV fees haven't even come close to keeping pace with inflation and the astronomical increase in infrastructure upkeep/building needed to maintain them). Public transit used to pay more for itself based on fares...
Some people want to make this out to be a public transit problem...I just want to point out that it's really a society-wide infrastructure problem. The true costs of our infrastructure are astronomically more than we realize. And one reason it's crumbling in so many places in the country is that the costs would be even more astronomically more to keep it in the kind of shape we demand/want (money we don't have...and probably a lot more than most people would be willing to pay).
I've seriously considered moving just outside the city limits to the county... both of my brothers have done this and are reaping the rewards.
One lives in Castro Valley which is 100% county with a tax rate about 50% LESS than what I pay living in Oakland... the other lives in Contra Costa with a very low rate.
The funny thing about Castro Valley is where he lives they have streetlights, sidewalks, trash service, a "Downtown" shopping district that has just about everything from a movie theater, auto repair, large shopping centers, etc... and the roads are nice... even has BART and a superb library and High School
The one in Contra Costa has none of the above except excellent roads... doesn't want streetlights, sidewalks and septic and well water are ideal...
The cities are great if you need or desire what's offered... the grey area is that a place like Castro Valley really is a city in services for a much lower cost... just moving out of the city is an immediate saving on car insurance, utility taxes and cell phone taxes...
It is incredible just how much money comes in from multiple sources...
Take a simple old car registration that would cost $35 in 5 years in Oregon and $400 for 5 years in California... a fix it ticket for a broken taillight is free in Nevada and costs $490 in California with fees and surcharges...
Heck... Washington and Nevada have no Income Tax and Oregon has no State Sales Tax!
The only event I ever attended at the Coliseum was the Oakland Roadster show which got booted... having a major league teams is great for some... besides... I can attend events not being a resident and not paying the tax assessments....
The assessments are specific to everything from schools, several for transit for BART and A/C transit, Water Service, 3 for medical, more parks, lead abatement to street lights...
Maybe what I'm saying is I pay top shelf prices in terms of taxes and not getting what I pay for...
My neighbor had a serious home burglary with forced entry and valuables taken and the police said to go online and file a report... go figure?
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 04-09-2015 at 11:38 AM..
Maybe what I'm saying is I pay top shelf prices in terms of taxes and not getting what I pay for...
Yeah, I agree with this. Unfortunately.
(I do still love it here, despite this recognition).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
