> Sure. And you can do that with taxes, rather than charging at point-of-use.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. As I addressed way above this comment chain:
> 1) it’s a funding source for transit agencies which are already facing shortfalls and at the mercy of voters for any tax increases or bonds.
Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions in e.g. the directions of Tracy/Stockton, Santa Cruz, Vallejo or an in-fill Diablo Valley run from Martinez to Pleasanton and provide more comprehensive coverage. It’s also nice to keep it segregated from having to compete within the legislature and on the ballot with highways.
> I mean, we (very wisely) subsidize the absolute hell out of road construction and maintenance, and noone bats an eye. Folks get weirdly up in arms when the method of transportation being subsidized doesn't require a (typically) many-thousand-dollar up-front investment to use.
We also subsidize the hell out of BART and public transportation. There isn’t a single mode of transportation within and between cities that isn’t heavily subsidized by the government. Maybe a smattering of fully private roads somewhere.
Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes (e.g. vehicle registration and fuel taxes), nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART.
> Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you shouldn't.
> We also subsidize the hell out of BART...
For ages, BART crowed about how it got like 80->95% of its operating expenses from rider fares. If what you're saying is true, then one or more of the following must be true:
1) The BART directors were lying to the public
2) This change in funding mix happened when BART ridership fell off a cliff as folks fled the SF Bay Area
3) Rider fares have never actually been expected to cover system expansions to any significant degree
If #3 is true, then it seems to me that talking about fares in conjunction with future system expansions is totally pointless and a waste of time.
> Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions...
And yet we frequently build new roadways without any significant usage-based funding.
> Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes...
Duh.
> ...nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART.
Nope, not in isolation. Of course not.
> As I addressed way above this comment chain:...
As you also said way above this comment chain:
> [I support suppressing] ridership by people who can['t] afford to pay the fee: vagrants, criminals and people who smoke crack on the trains.
On this, we disagree. I'm going to be kind and assume that the important part of your expressed concern is crime. The criminals are on trains with well-known stops; they're simply not going to force their way off of the train between stops. Like many other municipal railways BART has its own police force. Deploy the BART cops and get the bad guys at the next stop.
You might argue that this will be expensive, or that it will be ineffective. I'd argue that criminals have been able to jump over the faregates for nearly fifty years, so this thing we're discussing isn't a new problem.
As far as I remember, capital expansions have never relied on rider fares per se.
> And yet we frequently build new roadways without any significant usage-based funding.
And arguably we shouldn't be, or that we should be doing less of this. To be clear here, you are not going to find anywhere in this discussion in my own words that I am a friend of the institution of the automobile, the many highways built to support them, or suburbs.
> On this, we disagree. I'm going to be kind and assume that the important part of your expressed concern is crime.
The most important part is crime, but all the pieces matter. If you want to attract new ridership, that means improving service, improving QoL on BART (keeping both low level and overt crime at bay), and ultimately expanding BART's service area both making it more comprehensive in the areas it does serve and expanding it outwards to serve additional communities adjacent to its core service area attracting new paid riders who would otherwise probably drive. People who can take BART or MUNI but don't tend not to because to them, it is not a pleasant place for them to be and they will choose to drive or take a Lyft or make other choices. I'm sorry to say, but getting someone to drive you around no matter how many other people are riding with you is a small luxury[1] that people are not entitled to, nor should they be.
> Like many other municipal railways BART has its own police force. Deploy the BART cops and get the bad guys at the next stop.
> You might argue that this will be expensive, or that it will be ineffective.
I don't know why you think I would be making that argument. Part of having laws is the cost of enforcing them. If anything, I'd make the laws somewhat harsher and have a more active police presence throughout the BART system. One of the weak points now in the additional hardening that BART has been doing is that at some point, there's just no one minding the emergency exits and toll gates around downtown San Francisco. Take a page out of Japan's book, stop relying so much on patrol cars and install some kouban (and also better CCTVs) within the station infrastructure, enabling them to say, virtually fill in for when no one is visibly minding the booths. In terms of labor costs, I couldn't tell you if it would cost more because to be honest, I have no clue what BART Police are doing now when they're not actually on the trains and platforms.
> I'd argue that criminals have been able to jump over the faregates for nearly fifty years, so this thing we're discussing isn't a new problem.
Yeah, and we're discussing it because for the first time in BART's history, they're doing shit to actually address it in a productive fashion, rather than throwing up their hands and saying "free BART for everyone!". I think I like their new way at least directionally a bit better.
> Duh.
Bruh, that's how I felt when you explained we can "pay for things with taxes", or informing me that BART police exist, or that fare evasion isn't new. So, you actually want to go down this path? I know I don't want to. Let's be nice to each other.
[1] I know it doesn't feel like any kind of luxury, but it's true!
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. As I addressed way above this comment chain:
> 1) it’s a funding source for transit agencies which are already facing shortfalls and at the mercy of voters for any tax increases or bonds.
Having a funding source tied to use is also pretty nice if you want to financially justify further BART expansions in e.g. the directions of Tracy/Stockton, Santa Cruz, Vallejo or an in-fill Diablo Valley run from Martinez to Pleasanton and provide more comprehensive coverage. It’s also nice to keep it segregated from having to compete within the legislature and on the ballot with highways.
> I mean, we (very wisely) subsidize the absolute hell out of road construction and maintenance, and noone bats an eye. Folks get weirdly up in arms when the method of transportation being subsidized doesn't require a (typically) many-thousand-dollar up-front investment to use.
We also subsidize the hell out of BART and public transportation. There isn’t a single mode of transportation within and between cities that isn’t heavily subsidized by the government. Maybe a smattering of fully private roads somewhere.
Those subsidies are also not mutually exclusive with direct fees for service and direct fees and taxes (e.g. vehicle registration and fuel taxes), nor do they justify removing fee-for-service from BART.