Sunday, September 14, 2008

Bart: We Need To Charge More To Reduce Ridership

In an astonishing display of simplemindedness, the folks who run Bart have floated a trial balloon suggesting they might charge higher prices during commute hours.

The purported goal is to "spread out" rush-hour traffic by encouraging commuters to shift their trips outside those congested hours.

My opinion is this is just code for decreasing demand for Bart because they can't figure out how to run the system efficiently enough to handle the influx of passengers as gas prices have skyrocketed.

When you think about it, it's pretty amazing that a public agency in the Bay Area would suggest such a thing. Increasing tolls on area bridges during commute hours makes good public-policy sense by discouraging folks from driving. But why would we want to discourage usage of public transit, particularly as it becomes more cost-effective due to fuel prices?

Anyone who rides Bart daily knows that the system suffers from some issues. It's not uncommon for trains to run slowly or stop running altogther for a period of time. Still, the system works decently, and I think a few minor modifications would enable it to accomodate far more passengers during rush hour, obviating the need for this idiotic price increase.

First, during rush hour, all trains should be 10 cars long -- the maximum the system can handle. It always surprises me to see lines of eight- and nine-car trains during rush hour. These shortened trains create a nuisance for passengers and slow boarding as people must rush over from the edges of the platform where there are no cars.

Second, Bart should change the cars' ridiculous seat placement, at least for the cars used during rush hour. Removing the seats and placing benches along the walls, as they do in New York City, would probably allow 50 percent more people per car.

Third, Bart should actually enforce rules prohibiting bicycles on the trains during rush hour. And, while I'm at it, Bart should also enforce rules making it illegal to use the system without paying. I see dozens of people each week either jump the fare gate or use the elevators to avoid paying.

Finally, I'm sure there are technological solutions which would enable Bart to space trains more closely. I'm no train engineer, but it would seem Bay Area environmentalists and liberals would be willing to figure this element out to avoid steering people away from public transit.

I don't support Bart being free either, by the way. I used to cringe every time they declared a "spare the air" day, as that pretty much meant you'd face throngs of teenagers running up and down the cars as you tried to commute.

I think it makes sense to charge a reasonable price for using Bart. But if anything, the price should be reduced. If congestion pricing is to be implemented anywhere, it should occur on area bridges, with the profits diverted toward mass transit.

I can't believe Bart's plan is even under consideration. What happened to the area's liberals?

11 comments:

  1. I think it makes sense to charge a reasonable price for using Bart. But if anything, the price should be reduced. If congestion pricing is to be implemented anywhere, it should occur on area bridges, with the profits diverted toward mass transit.

    I'm glad we agree about at least one thing, Boss. All I can say is "Amen!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [...] 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 [...]

    ReplyDelete
  7. [...] 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 [...]

    ReplyDelete
  8. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great stats. Thanks for the info!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post... nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

    ReplyDelete
  11. [...] 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 [...]

    ReplyDelete