Post by bennyp81 on Jun 15, 2005 12:17:21 GMT -8
Bart Reed
User ID: 8854703 Feb 17th 11:47 AM
Los Angeles Times: Saturday, February 15, 2003
IN BRIEF: Rider Loss May Mean Fare Increases for BART
From Times Wire Reports
SAN FRANCISCO -- BART ridership is continuing to plunge, prompting the transit agency to consider fare increases and cost cuts to make up for lost revenue.
Weekday ridership has fallen from a high of 340,000 in spring 2000 to about 299,000 this month, and revenue from half-cent sales taxes in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties also has dropped.
Financial analysts see ridership and sales tax rebounding during the next fiscal year, but BART still could face an estimated budget deficit of $734 million over the next 10 years.
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 12:00 PM
I wonder why BART's ridership has fallen so drastically. Could it be because of fears of a terrorist attack? Are some of the former BART riders now taking buses instead? Also, do the BART administrators think that by raising fares they would gain riders (LOL)?
Bart Reed
User ID: 8854703 Feb 17th 12:33 PM
Actually BART gave major pay increases to its management and workers last year. And this was based upon ridership success from the peak of the dot-com boom. And then the bottom fell out.
Layoffs all over the bay, empty office buildings, high tech in the dumpster. The Highway 17 Cruiser bus celebrates Bankers Box Fridays. (Your desk comes home with you in the Box, along with your Pink Slip and Severance Pay.)
And, not only is BART ridership down, but so is ridership at A/C Transit and VTA. Both of these public transit agencies are making drastic bus and rail service cuts.
John, when the budget shortfall hits MTA, you will be in a world of pain, as MTA slashes services and raises fares.
And, we aren't just talking about the 10¢ per ride adjustment to hit the black market token sellers and the $6/monthly increase to better yield revenue off the bus passes.
John, all your suggestions on some of the other threads about getting revenue off of everyone else, so you don't see a price increase in unrealistic. Transit fares across the state are typically hitting $1.50 to $2 per boarding and many such as BART have distance based fares.
I have to assume you make quite a bit more then minimum wage, so you could afford the price increase. I understand that philosophicly, you feel entitled to more for less; i.e. your Love for the 99¢ Store, but pricing for public services has gotten way out of balance and you are seeing the market adjust all over the state.
When BART increases fares, they don't necessarily lose riders. BART also now is charging for parking. When you realize that tolls across the Oakland and Golden Gate Bridges are now hitting $3, $4 and $5 per trip and filling your vehicle is going up $5 to $10 per fill-up, increased BART fares can sometimes still be cost effective.
Don't forget, parking in San Francisco can be up to $25/day or more.
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 2:42 PM
My pro-justice stand is not unrealistic. Those who engage in practices that are, in my opinion, unethical, should pay more than those of us who are, in my opinion, fine, upstanding citizens. Thus, I naturally feel that taxes and fees should be hiked enormously on cigarette, pipe, and cigar smokers, as well as on car, "monster truck," SUV, and motorcycle owners. And of course corporate greed should be clamped down on; owners of "monster mansions" should be taxed more, etc.
As I have stated before, if the MTA offered excellent service, I would not mind paying more for my and my partner's Monthly Bus Passes; but they don't. Another alternative I think MTA should consider is shutting down the Blue and Green Lines so that bus riders do not have to pay higher fees for their bus passes.
Thanks, though, Bart, for explaining about the high tech bust's relation to BART's drastic ridership loss. We'll see if ridership increases once fares are increased (LOL).
PaulC
User ID: 1669454 Feb 17th 5:15 PM
We'll never see the blue and green lines ever shut down, plus you would be displacing a bunch of transit riders that use it for commuting and pleasure purposes. I know I would definitely protest if they even considered the option, and probably a lot of people would join me on this endeavor. Now concerning the Bart, more people would rather use the Bart then ride buses in the Bay, I know this for a fact having the insight of family and friends that live there. They honestly want to see more trains and metros built then buses added to the streets of San Francisco. Plus the streets are really congested in SF and I don't think if would be a feasible option to add more buses on them. As anyone that has the experience knows, buses on SF streets already have a hard enough time navigating them with the traffic congestion. My cousin the other day was telling me that the city of SF is considering raising the bridge tolls by a 25 cents to compensate Bart.
On another note. I'm behind MTA's stance to increase prices to ride, but they should raise the prices across the board, not just on the passes. It's unfair just to hit pass buyers with the increased cost of transit.
Paul
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Feb 17th 7:45 PM
Sounds like there's something we're overlooking with the BART ridership decline ... 40,000 daily riders is very significant.
It's also important to note that San Francisco is the 2nd most congested city in the nation ... behind L.A. of course. California seems to have a lock on the bad traffic awards!
Robert
User ID: 9621663 Feb 17th 8:59 PM
I think Bart hit-it-on-the-nose for the decline in ridership for BART, that being the Dot Com decline in the SF Bay Area.
This is the same type of thing that happened with the west end of the green line, when the cold war stopped with Russia and all the aerospace companies either folded or cut way back in El Segundo.
From Bart's post above and the MTA web site:
Ridership per passenger mile:
BART: 300,000 / 95 miles = 3158
Red Line: 130,000 / 17 miles = 7647
Red Line has 2.4 as many passengers per passenger mile than BART does.
BTW: Bart = Bart Reed and BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit.
Bob
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 9:23 PM
I doubt they'll be shut down, either. But I think that if they were, then there would be less reason for MTA to want to raise bus pass prices.
If shutting down the light rail lines would obviate a raise in bus pass prices, I certainly think it should be done. Those who use the light rail lines could simply take buses instead. Easy as pie!
Probably so.
If buses have trouble navigating the streets of San Francisco, then I think the city government should simply ban cars from the streets so that the unnecessary obstruction could be removed.
I don't mind the price cut for those paying cash, but I oppose the bus pass price increase.
Jerard
User ID: 0944964 Feb 17th 10:34 PM
John, I want you to do some math.
-Figure out the maximum capacity of a 40' bus.
-Then Figure out the maximum capacity for a three- car Blue/Green Line Train.
-Now, Take the capacity of the Metro Blue/Green Line 3 car trains and DIVIDE that by the maximum capacity of a 40' Bus or even a 60' bus if you have the time.
This is how many more staff you would need just to move the same number of people for just ONE train!
To take it a step further multiply that times a train running every 5 minutes and you see that the rail lines actually help keep the costs of the METRO SYSTEM down, by the ability to move more passenger for less!
Now it isn't as easy as pie, as you thought it was, and now the fare increase goes up another couple of dollars for pass users and up to $1.75 for Cash riders.
The Moral of this story An all bus system would put LA/MTA into a bigger financial hole than the building of the BLUE LINE.
Andrew S
User ID: 6410033 Feb 17th 10:36 PM
Perhaps Bart can remind me how many buses and bus drivers would be required to provide a bus service equivalent in capacity and speed (as if!) to the Blue Line. As I recall from a couple of days ago, the MTA said each bus costs $352,000 per year to run.
Light rail (at least on a well travelled corridor like the Blue Line) is significantly cheaper than bus per passenger mile.
PaulC
User ID: 1669454 Feb 17th 10:52 PM
A lot of the people that use the light rail lines in this city do so because they don't want to take the buses here. So if MTA shut down these rail lines, I doubt it would help the over all bottom line; because you would have a bunch of people in Los Angeles that detest buses get back in their cars and drive to where they need to go. You have to remember that people in Los Angeles are really anti-bus. I don't know how many people have told me that if it wasn't for the rail lines, they would never ride public transit. So I don't think that the whole shutting down the rail lines would help the problem.
Now in the case of San Francisco and cars, the city will never get a ban on cars in the city. You already have to have a permit now to park. Plus other big cities in the country have tried to get cars banned, and have been unsuccessful in there quest. When ever they have mention it, there was major opposition. Plus permit parking brings in some serious cash. So sorry to say John, you never see a ban on cars in SF or the rail system in our city shut down. Just get ready to pay your fair share.
Paul
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 11:04 PM
LOL.
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Feb 17th 11:08 PM
You guys are all right on the mark and you have the math to prove it, but no matter how much your logic makes sense, it will not fly with John. He'll come back something about how people "stare too much on light rail lines (tee hee)", or that the "seat backs are dirty (hahaha)".
If you notice, he ALWAYS takes the stance on any issue that will upset the most people possible. There is no logic to it, in fact sometimes his stances contradict each other. He even stated on another thread that he measures the quality of his posts by how many people respond to any post of his, no matter what they say.
Just move on, before it starts another Shapiro-esque thread full of illogical round-and-round bickering about nothing.
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 11:23 PM
Judging by comments made by the BRU and others, I have little doubt that shutting down L.A.'s light rail lines would help MTA's financial situation at the present time. Of course, I think there are other measures that might be taken instead, and I have already mentioned these.
Bart Reed
User ID: 8854703 Feb 18th 1:11 AM
Sorry to tell you all, but John's feelings are wrong on this "Kill the Blue Line, Replace the route with buses" theory. Several years ago when Blue Line Ridership was only 56,000+ riders, we found that it would take 482 buses to replace the Blue Line.
The cost was substantial and by replacing the Blue Line with buses, MTA costs would increase systemwide by $1 per ride. ($2 base fare)
Check out this webpage and the Light Rail Progress Website:
www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt04.htm
We have been able to debunk a lot of bus only theorists.
Also, it should be noted how expensive buses are.
Wilshire Rapid Bus started with 54 buses in June
2000 with an annual operating cost of $16 million.
Now, in December 2002, Wilshire Rapid uses 100 buses at an annual cost of $28 million. That is an operating cost increase of $12 million in 30 months. $12 million is more than most bus company budgets in the state of CA. Rapid Bus is costly.
As a transit economist, John does not win points.
But, 99¢ Stores are the best way to run a household. And I agree with John on 99¢ Stores.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Feb 18th 2:09 AM
Be careful in the 99¢ Store! Lots of the canned food they have in there is actually more expensive than in the supermarket, but since people go in there with the mindset that everything is cheap, they just buy without paying too much attention. That's how they pad their profit margins. You have to do your research and learn what stuff is a bargain at 99¢ and what is a rip-off.
dweb
User ID: 1822634 Feb 18th 9:42 PM
Other than a spatula and grape candy canes I've bought, the 99 cents store isn't the best, but I'd shop there if I had to.
PaulC
User ID: 1669454 Feb 19th 2:01 AM
I thought so, I wasnt sure because I dont go around comparing prices that offen. But I thought some of the can goods were more expensive there then in the regular stores.
Paul
User ID: 8854703 Feb 17th 11:47 AM
Los Angeles Times: Saturday, February 15, 2003
IN BRIEF: Rider Loss May Mean Fare Increases for BART
From Times Wire Reports
SAN FRANCISCO -- BART ridership is continuing to plunge, prompting the transit agency to consider fare increases and cost cuts to make up for lost revenue.
Weekday ridership has fallen from a high of 340,000 in spring 2000 to about 299,000 this month, and revenue from half-cent sales taxes in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties also has dropped.
Financial analysts see ridership and sales tax rebounding during the next fiscal year, but BART still could face an estimated budget deficit of $734 million over the next 10 years.
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 12:00 PM
I wonder why BART's ridership has fallen so drastically. Could it be because of fears of a terrorist attack? Are some of the former BART riders now taking buses instead? Also, do the BART administrators think that by raising fares they would gain riders (LOL)?
Bart Reed
User ID: 8854703 Feb 17th 12:33 PM
Actually BART gave major pay increases to its management and workers last year. And this was based upon ridership success from the peak of the dot-com boom. And then the bottom fell out.
Layoffs all over the bay, empty office buildings, high tech in the dumpster. The Highway 17 Cruiser bus celebrates Bankers Box Fridays. (Your desk comes home with you in the Box, along with your Pink Slip and Severance Pay.)
And, not only is BART ridership down, but so is ridership at A/C Transit and VTA. Both of these public transit agencies are making drastic bus and rail service cuts.
John, when the budget shortfall hits MTA, you will be in a world of pain, as MTA slashes services and raises fares.
And, we aren't just talking about the 10¢ per ride adjustment to hit the black market token sellers and the $6/monthly increase to better yield revenue off the bus passes.
John, all your suggestions on some of the other threads about getting revenue off of everyone else, so you don't see a price increase in unrealistic. Transit fares across the state are typically hitting $1.50 to $2 per boarding and many such as BART have distance based fares.
I have to assume you make quite a bit more then minimum wage, so you could afford the price increase. I understand that philosophicly, you feel entitled to more for less; i.e. your Love for the 99¢ Store, but pricing for public services has gotten way out of balance and you are seeing the market adjust all over the state.
When BART increases fares, they don't necessarily lose riders. BART also now is charging for parking. When you realize that tolls across the Oakland and Golden Gate Bridges are now hitting $3, $4 and $5 per trip and filling your vehicle is going up $5 to $10 per fill-up, increased BART fares can sometimes still be cost effective.
Don't forget, parking in San Francisco can be up to $25/day or more.
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 2:42 PM
My pro-justice stand is not unrealistic. Those who engage in practices that are, in my opinion, unethical, should pay more than those of us who are, in my opinion, fine, upstanding citizens. Thus, I naturally feel that taxes and fees should be hiked enormously on cigarette, pipe, and cigar smokers, as well as on car, "monster truck," SUV, and motorcycle owners. And of course corporate greed should be clamped down on; owners of "monster mansions" should be taxed more, etc.
As I have stated before, if the MTA offered excellent service, I would not mind paying more for my and my partner's Monthly Bus Passes; but they don't. Another alternative I think MTA should consider is shutting down the Blue and Green Lines so that bus riders do not have to pay higher fees for their bus passes.
Thanks, though, Bart, for explaining about the high tech bust's relation to BART's drastic ridership loss. We'll see if ridership increases once fares are increased (LOL).
PaulC
User ID: 1669454 Feb 17th 5:15 PM
We'll never see the blue and green lines ever shut down, plus you would be displacing a bunch of transit riders that use it for commuting and pleasure purposes. I know I would definitely protest if they even considered the option, and probably a lot of people would join me on this endeavor. Now concerning the Bart, more people would rather use the Bart then ride buses in the Bay, I know this for a fact having the insight of family and friends that live there. They honestly want to see more trains and metros built then buses added to the streets of San Francisco. Plus the streets are really congested in SF and I don't think if would be a feasible option to add more buses on them. As anyone that has the experience knows, buses on SF streets already have a hard enough time navigating them with the traffic congestion. My cousin the other day was telling me that the city of SF is considering raising the bridge tolls by a 25 cents to compensate Bart.
On another note. I'm behind MTA's stance to increase prices to ride, but they should raise the prices across the board, not just on the passes. It's unfair just to hit pass buyers with the increased cost of transit.
Paul
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Feb 17th 7:45 PM
Sounds like there's something we're overlooking with the BART ridership decline ... 40,000 daily riders is very significant.
It's also important to note that San Francisco is the 2nd most congested city in the nation ... behind L.A. of course. California seems to have a lock on the bad traffic awards!
Robert
User ID: 9621663 Feb 17th 8:59 PM
I think Bart hit-it-on-the-nose for the decline in ridership for BART, that being the Dot Com decline in the SF Bay Area.
This is the same type of thing that happened with the west end of the green line, when the cold war stopped with Russia and all the aerospace companies either folded or cut way back in El Segundo.
From Bart's post above and the MTA web site:
Ridership per passenger mile:
BART: 300,000 / 95 miles = 3158
Red Line: 130,000 / 17 miles = 7647
Red Line has 2.4 as many passengers per passenger mile than BART does.
BTW: Bart = Bart Reed and BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit.
Bob
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 9:23 PM
We'll never see the blue and green lines ever shut down,
I doubt they'll be shut down, either. But I think that if they were, then there would be less reason for MTA to want to raise bus pass prices.
[...]plus you would
be displacing a bunch of transit riders that use it for commuting and pleasure purposes.
be displacing a bunch of transit riders that use it for commuting and pleasure purposes.
If shutting down the light rail lines would obviate a raise in bus pass prices, I certainly think it should be done. Those who use the light rail lines could simply take buses instead. Easy as pie!
I know I would definitely protest if they even
considered the option, and probably a lot of people would join me on this endeavor.
considered the option, and probably a lot of people would join me on this endeavor.
Probably so.
Now concerning the Bart, more people would rather use the Bart then ride buses in the Bay, I know this for a fact having the insight of family and friends that live there. They honestly want to see more trains and metros built then buses added to the streets of San Francisco. Plus the streets are really congested in SF and I don't think if would be a feasible option to add more buses on them. As anyone that has the experience knows, buses on SF streets already have a hard enough time navigating them with the traffic congestion. My cousin the other day was telling me that the city of SF is considering raising the bridge tolls by a 25 cents to compensate Bart. On another note.
If buses have trouble navigating the streets of San Francisco, then I think the city government should simply ban cars from the streets so that the unnecessary obstruction could be removed.
I'm behind MTA's stance to increase prices to ride, but they should raise the prices across the board, not just on the passes. It's unfair just to hit pass buyers with the increased cost of transit.
I don't mind the price cut for those paying cash, but I oppose the bus pass price increase.
Jerard
User ID: 0944964 Feb 17th 10:34 PM
If shutting down the light rail lines would obviate a raise in bus pass prices, I certainly think it should be done. Those who use the light rail lines could simply take buses instead. Easy as pie!
John, I want you to do some math.
-Figure out the maximum capacity of a 40' bus.
-Then Figure out the maximum capacity for a three- car Blue/Green Line Train.
-Now, Take the capacity of the Metro Blue/Green Line 3 car trains and DIVIDE that by the maximum capacity of a 40' Bus or even a 60' bus if you have the time.
This is how many more staff you would need just to move the same number of people for just ONE train!
To take it a step further multiply that times a train running every 5 minutes and you see that the rail lines actually help keep the costs of the METRO SYSTEM down, by the ability to move more passenger for less!
Now it isn't as easy as pie, as you thought it was, and now the fare increase goes up another couple of dollars for pass users and up to $1.75 for Cash riders.
The Moral of this story An all bus system would put LA/MTA into a bigger financial hole than the building of the BLUE LINE.
Andrew S
User ID: 6410033 Feb 17th 10:36 PM
Those who use the light rail lines could simply take buses instead. Easy as pie!
Perhaps Bart can remind me how many buses and bus drivers would be required to provide a bus service equivalent in capacity and speed (as if!) to the Blue Line. As I recall from a couple of days ago, the MTA said each bus costs $352,000 per year to run.
Light rail (at least on a well travelled corridor like the Blue Line) is significantly cheaper than bus per passenger mile.
PaulC
User ID: 1669454 Feb 17th 10:52 PM
A lot of the people that use the light rail lines in this city do so because they don't want to take the buses here. So if MTA shut down these rail lines, I doubt it would help the over all bottom line; because you would have a bunch of people in Los Angeles that detest buses get back in their cars and drive to where they need to go. You have to remember that people in Los Angeles are really anti-bus. I don't know how many people have told me that if it wasn't for the rail lines, they would never ride public transit. So I don't think that the whole shutting down the rail lines would help the problem.
Now in the case of San Francisco and cars, the city will never get a ban on cars in the city. You already have to have a permit now to park. Plus other big cities in the country have tried to get cars banned, and have been unsuccessful in there quest. When ever they have mention it, there was major opposition. Plus permit parking brings in some serious cash. So sorry to say John, you never see a ban on cars in SF or the rail system in our city shut down. Just get ready to pay your fair share.
Paul
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 11:04 PM
Just get ready to pay your fair share.
LOL.
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Feb 17th 11:08 PM
You guys are all right on the mark and you have the math to prove it, but no matter how much your logic makes sense, it will not fly with John. He'll come back something about how people "stare too much on light rail lines (tee hee)", or that the "seat backs are dirty (hahaha)".
If you notice, he ALWAYS takes the stance on any issue that will upset the most people possible. There is no logic to it, in fact sometimes his stances contradict each other. He even stated on another thread that he measures the quality of his posts by how many people respond to any post of his, no matter what they say.
Just move on, before it starts another Shapiro-esque thread full of illogical round-and-round bickering about nothing.
John
User ID: 9510053 Feb 17th 11:23 PM
Judging by comments made by the BRU and others, I have little doubt that shutting down L.A.'s light rail lines would help MTA's financial situation at the present time. Of course, I think there are other measures that might be taken instead, and I have already mentioned these.
Bart Reed
User ID: 8854703 Feb 18th 1:11 AM
Sorry to tell you all, but John's feelings are wrong on this "Kill the Blue Line, Replace the route with buses" theory. Several years ago when Blue Line Ridership was only 56,000+ riders, we found that it would take 482 buses to replace the Blue Line.
The cost was substantial and by replacing the Blue Line with buses, MTA costs would increase systemwide by $1 per ride. ($2 base fare)
Check out this webpage and the Light Rail Progress Website:
www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt04.htm
We have been able to debunk a lot of bus only theorists.
Also, it should be noted how expensive buses are.
Wilshire Rapid Bus started with 54 buses in June
2000 with an annual operating cost of $16 million.
Now, in December 2002, Wilshire Rapid uses 100 buses at an annual cost of $28 million. That is an operating cost increase of $12 million in 30 months. $12 million is more than most bus company budgets in the state of CA. Rapid Bus is costly.
As a transit economist, John does not win points.
But, 99¢ Stores are the best way to run a household. And I agree with John on 99¢ Stores.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Roberto
User ID: 9161143 Feb 18th 2:09 AM
Be careful in the 99¢ Store! Lots of the canned food they have in there is actually more expensive than in the supermarket, but since people go in there with the mindset that everything is cheap, they just buy without paying too much attention. That's how they pad their profit margins. You have to do your research and learn what stuff is a bargain at 99¢ and what is a rip-off.
dweb
User ID: 1822634 Feb 18th 9:42 PM
Be careful in the 99¢ Store! Lots of the canned food they have in there is actually more expensive than in the supermarket, but since people go in there with the mindset that everything is cheap, they just buy without paying too much attention. That's how they pad their profit margins. You have to do your research and learn what stuff is a bargain at 99¢ and what is a rip-off.
Other than a spatula and grape candy canes I've bought, the 99 cents store isn't the best, but I'd shop there if I had to.
PaulC
User ID: 1669454 Feb 19th 2:01 AM
I thought so, I wasnt sure because I dont go around comparing prices that offen. But I thought some of the can goods were more expensive there then in the regular stores.
Paul