Comments on: Bart: We Need To Charge More To Reduce Ridership http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/ Words from a Non-Leftist Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:54:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Why are developers split over the Oakland City Council candidates? – FutureOakland http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-3607 Why are developers split over the Oakland City Council candidates? – FutureOakland Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:58:30 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-3607 [...] look to her transit leadership to advocate on their behalf on the Council. Ms. Hamill’s BART, as we recently learned, has no capacity to expand service, and is far from much of Oakland anyhow. Bus service is simply [...] [...] look to her transit leadership to advocate on their behalf on the Council. Ms. Hamill’s BART, as we recently learned, has no capacity to expand service, and is far from much of Oakland anyhow. Bus service is simply [...]

]]> By: sandrar http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-3347 sandrar Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:17:29 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-3347 Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post... nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R. Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

]]> By: TheBoss http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2106 TheBoss Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:27:59 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2106 Great stats. Thanks for the info! Great stats. Thanks for the info!

]]> By: David http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2105 David Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:26:00 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2105 What I love is ridership is up barely 6%, yet BART is proposing this idiotic "solution." If they just ran all 9 car trains during rush hour, they'd up capacity 12%, never mind running 10 car trains. Problem solved. What I love is ridership is up barely 6%, yet BART is proposing this idiotic “solution.” If they just ran all 9 car trains during rush hour, they’d up capacity 12%, never mind running 10 car trains. Problem solved.

]]> By: Raymond Johnson http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2097 Raymond Johnson Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:56:34 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2097 [...] EBC laments BART discouraging use of public transit by increasing peak-hour fares. And I agree, this is not something BART should do. Instead it should raise fares at peak-hours just enough [...] [...] EBC laments BART discouraging use of public transit by increasing peak-hour fares. And I agree, this is not something BART should do. Instead it should raise fares at peak-hours just enough [...]

]]> By: Why are developers split over the Oakland City Council candidates? « FutureOakland http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2091 Why are developers split over the Oakland City Council candidates? « FutureOakland Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:58:09 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2091 [...] look to her transit leadership to advocate on their behalf on the Council. Ms. Hamill’s BART, as we recently learned, has no capacity to expand service, and is far from much of Oakland anyhow. Bus service is simply [...] [...] look to her transit leadership to advocate on their behalf on the Council. Ms. Hamill’s BART, as we recently learned, has no capacity to expand service, and is far from much of Oakland anyhow. Bus service is simply [...]

]]> By: mark ross http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2063 mark ross Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:02:44 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2063 The controversy over BART's proposed new revenue strategy illustrates some of the differences between a market economy and a command economy. In a market, supply and demand would settle the pricing question. In a command system various agendas have standing to influence pricing policy. When I ride BART I usually have my bike with me... and I appreciate some degree of accommodation. That's my agenda. Raising fares during hours of peak opperation is called "opportunity" pricing. With a bridge the agenda lobby feels that such a practice will make more politically popular alternatives more desirable. With BART the pricing strategy should take advantage of the increased cost of the alternatives... while still being the most competitive. A few years ago an environmental group, I believe the Natural Resources Defense Council, found that when all costs were added up, automobiles were reasonably efficient for urban transportation. Those costs have since gone up. The BART fare problem, as well as similar problems for other public transportation systems, reveals that money is lost on each rider. The more riders, the more lost money. The controversy over BART’s proposed new revenue strategy illustrates some of the differences between a market economy and a command economy. In a market, supply and demand would settle the pricing question. In a command system various agendas have standing to influence pricing policy. When I ride BART I usually have my bike with me… and I appreciate some degree of accommodation. That’s my agenda. Raising fares during hours of peak opperation is called “opportunity” pricing. With a bridge the agenda lobby feels that such a practice will make more politically popular alternatives more desirable. With BART the pricing strategy should take advantage of the increased cost of the alternatives… while still being the most competitive. A few years ago an environmental group, I believe the Natural Resources Defense Council, found that when all costs were added up, automobiles were reasonably efficient for urban transportation. Those costs have since gone up. The BART fare problem, as well as similar problems for other public transportation systems, reveals that money is lost on each rider. The more riders, the more lost money.

]]> By: Jim M http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2049 Jim M Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:57:20 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2049 Why not a flat rate fare? My friend from Chicago was amazed you pay different rates depending on where you are going. Think about all of the money you would save by eliminating the ticket machine infastructure. Why not a flat rate fare? My friend from Chicago was amazed you pay different rates depending on where you are going. Think about all of the money you would save by eliminating the ticket machine infastructure.

]]> By: Raymond Johnson http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2048 Raymond Johnson Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:37:26 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2048 It appears that local liberals have embraced more market-oriented pricing for scarce resources, something I would think Bay Area conservatives would favor. EBC makes some good suggestions, though I think that BART cars should retain most of the seating, both because I would like to see it become more than a commuter system, and BART is really a subway - commuter rail hybrid, and those would be some long rides without comfortable seats. This doesn't have to be a fare increase, it could (and should) be, at the very least, revenue neutral. And if BART undercharges suburban commuters and overcharges urban commuters, this should be made changed in any new pricing scheme as well. BART already promotes urban sprawl by making living further from employment centers easier, it shouldn't be doing so via its pricing policy as well. Having said all this, EBC is right that we shouldn't be raising fares, in fact we should be subsidizing them more. But that doesn't mean fares shouldn't be adjusted to encourage commuters to better space their travel and create more efficiencies within the system. It appears that local liberals have embraced more market-oriented pricing for scarce resources, something I would think Bay Area conservatives would favor. EBC makes some good suggestions, though I think that BART cars should retain most of the seating, both because I would like to see it become more than a commuter system, and BART is really a subway – commuter rail hybrid, and those would be some long rides without comfortable seats.

This doesn’t have to be a fare increase, it could (and should) be, at the very least, revenue neutral. And if BART undercharges suburban commuters and overcharges urban commuters, this should be made changed in any new pricing scheme as well. BART already promotes urban sprawl by making living further from employment centers easier, it shouldn’t be doing so via its pricing policy as well.

Having said all this, EBC is right that we shouldn’t be raising fares, in fact we should be subsidizing them more. But that doesn’t mean fares shouldn’t be adjusted to encourage commuters to better space their travel and create more efficiencies within the system.

]]> By: dto510 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/comment-page-1/#comment-2047 dto510 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:00:20 +0000 http://www.eastbayconservative.com/2008/09/15/bart-we-need-to-charge-more-to-reduce-ridership/#comment-2047 Charging for the congestion load on heavily-used stations makes some sense, but why can't BART expand egress options at select stations? Usually congestion pricing is a market-oriented way to raise transit funds, but in this case it's falling on (some of) the wrong people. Underlying this discussion is the fact that BART actually makes money off of folks like me who take it within Oakland and Berkeley (or within SF), but loses several dollars every time someone uses a suburban station. BART owns the Capitol Corridor but focuses on expanding their more expensive main system to San Jose instead of upgrading or better connecting their existing rail line to BART (it's physically well-connected at Richmond and the Coliseum). BART needs to take a hard look at their inefficiencies and who is really causing their fiscal problems before restructuring fares. Charging for the congestion load on heavily-used stations makes some sense, but why can’t BART expand egress options at select stations? Usually congestion pricing is a market-oriented way to raise transit funds, but in this case it’s falling on (some of) the wrong people.

Underlying this discussion is the fact that BART actually makes money off of folks like me who take it within Oakland and Berkeley (or within SF), but loses several dollars every time someone uses a suburban station. BART owns the Capitol Corridor but focuses on expanding their more expensive main system to San Jose instead of upgrading or better connecting their existing rail line to BART (it’s physically well-connected at Richmond and the Coliseum). BART needs to take a hard look at their inefficiencies and who is really causing their fiscal problems before restructuring fares.

]]>