Obama plans high-speed money shredder, made in China.

[Steeplerot]

You must be on some good crack. Why would ANYBODY deviate and go across the bay to get to another East Bay location? 81miles round trip on BART is $5.05*3*2=$30.3. From Union City to Pleasant Hill on I880 and CA24 is 40.1 miles one way. If I drove a Honda Civic that gets 40mpg that's 1 gallon of gas for 3 people @ $4 a gallon that's still only $4 for 3 people vs. $15. BART is therefore a little less than (including depreciation) 375% more expensive than driving.

You are not going to get 40 mpg on the 880 going through the heart of the east bay snag. You also should look at estimated times. Sure, you can get there cheaper if you have a amazing car, perfect driving conditions (880? lol!) and a few hours to burn in the east bay traffic and smog. Enjoy sucking exhaust while the BART passes your asses by unimpeded by surface gridlock.

 

[alphatarget1]

You are not going to get 40 mpg on the 880 going through the heart of the east bay snag. You also should look at estimated times. Sure, you can get there cheaper if you have a amazing car, perfect driving conditions (880? lol!) and a few hours to burn in east bay traffic.

Non-peak times, genius. We did the drive last weekend.

 

[alphatarget1]

How many public transit systems post a surplus without tax subsidies? In MN our public transit system covers something ridiculous like 35% of the cost of operations through fares. The rest is picked up by siphoning off taxes. The mass transit crowd is in a real pickle on that argument. If they changed the fares to represent the true cost of riding on their toy trains ridership would drop like a rock. I would have no problem with mass\public transit if the fares covered the true cost of service.

I think NYC's MTA is close to breaking even, but their residents are totally dependent on MTA.

I also think motorists should pick up the true cost of properly maintaining our highway infrastructure. If you talk to professionals who work in transportation engineering, they'd tell you that the cost of operating a mass transit system in most areas is far less than having to accommodate the riders that would otherwise be driving.

Plus, I think gas will be $8 a gallon in the near future...

 

[Steeplerot]

This? or smooth sailing on the train chilling on the laptop after work? Choices choices.

I will be in the tunnel bypassing this mess, thanks.

And btw, most commuters do not pay for individual tickets, now factor in the monthly BART pass with its flat fee, low hassle fare payment of swiping a card through the gates, then compare it to your fuel/maintance/taxes/bridgetolls for a car all month. No comparison if you use your head.

 

[chucky2]

To be fair, mass transit doesn't necessairily have to be revenue neutral, or positive, to be viable. It can run in the red if it's in the red costs meet or outweigh what it brings in social positive.

The question then becomes, who fairly (can be interpreted different ways), and accurately (up for interpretation, and skewing), can measure the social positive. And then, assuming one could get that measurement done year after year fairly and accurately, contrast that with the amount in red. And then, you have to contrast that fairly and accurately...again, up for skewing and interpretation.

If you have a $700M mass transit that runs $30M in the red year over year, but it moves sh1ttons of people and really cuts down on pollution, well, that's really not so bad at all - I'd call that definitely worth it.

If you have a $700M mass transit that runs $300M in the red year over year, and does the same things, I'd call that F'd up.

Chuck

 

[Genx87]

I think NYC's MTA is close to breaking even, but their residents are totally dependent on MTA.

I also think motorists should pick up the true cost of properly maintaining our highway infrastructure. If you talk to pros who work in transportation engineering, they'd tell you that the cost of operating a mass transit system is far less than having to accommodate the riders that would otherwise be driving.

Plus, I think gas will be $8 a gallon in the near future...

I'd have no problem with paying higher gas taxes if it maintained and expanded our roads. The problem I have is a sizeable % of gas taxes collected in MN dont go to road construction\maintenance.

 

[PeshakJang]

If you have a $700M mass transit that runs $300M in the red year over year, and does the same things, I'd call that F'd up.

Chuck

You just described BART.

 

[alphatarget1]

I'd have no problem with paying higher gas taxes if it maintained and expanded our roads. The problem I have is a sizeable % of gas taxes collected in MN dont go to road construction\maintenance.

One of the arguments for mass transit is there are other areas of concern, namely air quality, noise pollution, etc. When you build a new road you'd have to acquire right of way and buy land to build them. How does that affect existing neighborhoods? You can't just bulldoze everything and build a 10 lane road that will only be utilized 3-4 hours on workdays while the rest of the time it's sitting there getting deteriorated by the sun, water and, in your case, deicing salts. You'd also need a lot more snow plowers to plow the extra lanes.

I think the transportation engineering community need to do better in PR into how they have arrived at their plans. If you were put in their shoe with the available tools at your disposal, you would probably make the same recommendations they made to decision makers...

With that said, transportation engineers don't make the decisions, decision makers (aka politicians) do.

 

[alphatarget1]

This? or smooth sailing on the train chilling on the laptop after work? Choices choices.

I will be in the tunnel bypassing this mess, thanks.

And btw, most commuters do not pay for individual tickets, now factor in the monthly BART pass with its flat fee, hassle payment of swiping a card, then compare it to your fuel/maintance/taxes/bridgetolls for a car. No comparison.

I'm done responding to your posts. You obviously lack reading comprehension skills.

 

[alphatarget1]

To be fair, mass transit doesn't necessairily have to be revenue neutral, or positive, to be viable. It can run in the red if it's in the red costs meet or outweigh what it brings in social positive.

The question then becomes, who fairly (can be interpreted different ways), and accurately (up for interpretation, and skewing), can measure the social positive. And then, assuming one could get that measurement done year after year fairly and accurately, contrast that with the amount in red. And then, you have to contrast that fairly and accurately...again, up for skewing and interpretation.

Chuck

QFT.

 

[Genx87]

One of the arguments for mass transit is there are other areas of concern, namely air quality, noise pollution, etc. When you build a new road you'd have to acquire right of way and buy land to build them. How does that affect existing neighborhoods? You can't just bulldoze everything and build a 10 lane road that will only be utilized 3-4 hours on workdays while the rest of the time it's sitting there getting deteriorated by the sun, water and, in your case, deicing salts.

This isnt applied to train systems? Tracks have to be laid, stations built ect.

In certain geographical locations I can certainly appreciated the air quality concern. In Minneapolis where we live on the plains that isnt valid. It blows east in Wisc.

The question of course when it comes to taking cars off the road. How many and what cost? In many systems we are talking about hundreds of thousands of cars daily. Does it make sense to build a train system that costs billions to take 3000 cars off the road? Or spend that money adding another lane to a congested highway?

 

[Steeplerot]

I'm done responding to your posts.

As I am tired of playing stupid games of trollish semantics since you obviously cannot handle being wrong.

 

[Generator]

Right wing ideologues...

We all know Reagan told you government sucks and doesn't work. He proved that by taking a big shit on your faces for the next 30 years with his dope driven policies. But there was also some idiot that said government should be run like a business. With profits and all the fixings. You bunkered-brained radical right-winged ideologues do understand that there is a difference between government and your buddy's gun shop right?

How the fuck do you complain about subsidies when so called private business has had its hand out for decades now. Big oil post record profits and still gets subsidized. When you shitkickers find the courage to leave your bunkers without your gun and get some fresh air you will soon realize the archetypes of what is business and what is government has been obliterated for decades now.

 

[xj0hnx]

You just described BART.

But dude, it's smooooth sailin' and you get to surf porn on your laptop at the same time, and be a cool socialite hipster chillin' with the peeps.

 

[alphatarget1]

Ok? And this isnt applied to train systems? Tracks have to be laid, stations built ect.

In certain geographical locations I can certainly appreciated the air quality concern. In Minneapolis where we live on the plains that isnt valid. It blows east in Wisc.

The question of course when it comes to taking cars off the road. How many and what cost? In many systems we are talking about hundreds of thousands of cars daily. Does it make sense to build a train system that costs billions to take 3000 cars off the road? Or spend that money adding another lane to a congested highway?

I have no answer to your question with regards to whether Minneapolis' light rail system is worth the money, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. I am not for or against your (or for that matter, any US metro) public mass transit system. We live in a democracy. In most of Texas we decided to build roads/toll roads instead of mass transit (Dallas has a good light rail and commuter train system though). Surely there are public hearings before big projects are built, if you didn't like how your policymakers rationalized their decision to spend your tax dollars, you are welcome to exercise your right to vote against the representatives who made decisions that you believe aren't good for your community.

My $0.02.

 

[Steeplerot]

But dude, it's smooooth sailin' and you get to surf porn on your laptop at the same time, and be a cool socialite hipster chillin' with the peeps.

And now the post conserva-ownage ad-homenim childishness dogpile begins. lol

 

[PeshakJang]

And now the post conserva-ownage ad-homenim childishness dogpile begins. lol

You've lost the argument. Grow up and admit it.

Otherwise, refute my facts or post some of your own. Not a news piece... I want financial facts.

BTW, I already posted the financial reports for you, so feel free to analyze them.

 

[Steeplerot]

The question of course when it comes to taking cars off the road. How many and what cost? In many systems we are talking about hundreds of thousands of cars daily. Does it make sense to build a train system that costs billions to take 3000 cars off the road? Or spend that money adding another lane to a congested highway?

A smallish transit system of 50-80k daily ridership for smaller cities like Min/StP for example is not "3000" cars off the road. Nowhere near.

 

[Steeplerot]

Not a news piece... I want financial facts.

You cannot accept the report from Bart.gov, and half a dozen major newspapers. Ok timmy *pats head*

Don't you guys have corporate think-tanks writing numbers for you? I am disappointed in your lack of google skills for the dark side of the force. You make it so easy. :wub:

(or let me guess, rush hasn't provided the marching orders yet on this subject except that GUBBUMUNT IS TEH BAAAD?) weaksauce

 

[ShawnD1]

How many public transit systems post a surplus without tax subsidies? In MN our public transit system covers something ridiculous like 35% of the cost of operations through fares. The rest is picked up by siphoning off taxes. The mass transit crowd is in a real pickle on that argument. If they changed the fares to represent the true cost of riding on their toy trains ridership would drop like a rock. I would have no problem with mass\public transit if the fares covered the true cost of service.

They subsidize mass transit to bring balance to the force. Without the subsidies, cities would be fucked beyond belief.

If taking the bus costs $300/month, you might as well drive to work.
-increase of cars on the road means your 45 minute drive or bus ride to work is now a 2 hour drive to work
-now that you and every other asshole are driving, demand for parking goes up
-parking costs double and there's still nowhere to park
-you end up parking half a mile away from where you work and walk the remaining distance
-people who don't have $300/month can no longer take the bus, and they probably don't own cars either
-bus ridership drops to 0 and the entire bus system is canceled
-you must drive to work or live within walking distance (can't ride a bike in winter)


IMO it should be the other way around. City transit should be entirely 100% covered by taxes. You shouldn't even need a pass. Just get on the bus and go. The driver should reserve the right to deny service if someone is a drunk or a bum. No more people trying to scam the system, no need to print bus passes with weird holograms or reflective material, no more carrying around hundreds of pounds of coins, no more bus transfers that people throw on the ground rather than in the trash. Get as many cars off the road as possible. That way the people who need to drive and have no other options can still get to work with as little traffic as possible.

Right now the parking situation in my city is fucked. It ranges from about $200 to $300 per month. In some cities it's even worse than that. I don't even want to guess how much it costs to park in NYC or LA.

 

[PeshakJang]

You cannot accept the report from Bart.gov, and half a dozen major newspapers. Ok timmy *pats head*

It's a press release. Please tell me what part of the following you do not understand, as I have reiterated it several times already:

They made $368 Million in operating revenue
They had $648 Million in operating expenses
They had a total operating shortfall of $280 Million

Add taxes, federal, and state subsidies, and the difference is almost made up. Add $20 million in additional state assistance, and they wind up with $4 million more than they budgeted for.

Do you understand? The transit system loses money. A LOT of money. The fact that the government gave them a little more money than they thought, resulting in them having $4 million that they didn't plan on having, doesn't change that fact.

If the Department of Defense budgets for $500 billion one year, and the government gives them $501 Billion, that's a revenue surplus. Does that mean they made money?

 

[ElFenix]

bus actually costs me slightly more per day than driving my car does. and my total commute time doesn't really improve. but i like the bus because i hate dealing with the traffic. in fact, the more i ride the bus the less tolerance for traffic i have.


my main observations about the bus: it stops way too often (every other corner is the aim. which is very often in neighborhoods with short blocks) which kills average speed, and it doesn't come often enough. peak hours regular and cross town routes come every 20 minutes. commuter routes come every 8, but i bet they're money makers.

 

[werepossum]

BART is NOT cheap. $5 bucks each from Union City to Pleasant Hill. 3x people that's $15 roundtrip.

I think the reason for this is off-peak operation. Mass transit looks great when the numbers are run fully loaded, but the trains cost almost as much to run when there are very few people riding, and to be truly useful enough to replace private transportation, trains have to run at all hours.

 

[alphatarget1]

I think the reason for this is off-peak operation. Mass transit looks great when the numbers are run fully loaded, but the trains cost almost as much to run when there are very few people riding, and to be truly useful enough to replace private transportation, trains have to run at all hours.

Ridership in BART is a lot better than 10 years ago, even in non-peak times... way better compared to when gas was $1 a gallon.

I wonder why BART has such a high operating cost? Is the board of directors doing its job? Maybe it's time to cut costs and de-unionize their employees? Since CA has such a high employment rate, maybe they can retrain scabs and replace the overpaid union workers?

 

[ShawnD1]

bus actually costs me slightly more per day than driving my car does. and my total commute time doesn't really improve. but i like the bus because i hate dealing with the traffic. in fact, the more i ride the bus the less tolerance for traffic i have.

Some of the major roads in my city have a dedicated bus lane for certain hours of the day. While the left and middle lanes are slow enough that you can keep your car in first gear for the next 5 miles, the bus is cruising 30mph down the right lane. Cars caught driving in the bus lane get a $170 ticket and cops are there literally every day. As a result, taking the bus downtown is MUCH faster than driving downtown.

The difference is more insane if you need to cross the bridge. Some of the bridges are so clogged with cars that it takes 45 minutes just to get across the bridge. Some of the bridges have dedicated bus lanes, and the city train even has its own bridge. The city train can go from the fast east side of the city to the far south side of the city in less time than it takes for your car to just cross the bridge.
Public transit to get to work is fucking awesome.