BART unlimited passes

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

Why doesn't BART sell unlimited passes?

I know it's a commuter service - lots of commuter rail lines have unlimited passes. Why is BART the lone exception?

What would it take to change this? An act of congress? A measure on the ballot? Does anybody else care?

[Patrick Scheible]

Sounds like a question to ask BART's board.

-- Patrick

[spamtrap1888]

On Jun 21, 8:36 pm, hannahfontan...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why doesn't BART sell unlimited passes?

On BART, you get what you pay for. But what exactly do you mean by
"unlimited"?

>
> I know it's a commuter service - lots of commuter rail lines have unlimited passes. Why is BART the lone exception?
>

On BART, you basically pay for the distance you occupy the train. Ride
longer distances, you pay more. If BART sold truly unlimited system-
wide fares, either they or you would lose money, depending on what
they set the price at.

But that's not what other zoned-fare rail lines do. The so-called
unlimited passes are limited by number of trips offered per day, and
by the distance the pass is good for. While you pay more the longer
distance you travel, most commuter rail lines are designed around
bringing suburbanites downtown in the morning and back home at night.
There is not a lot of midday or late evening service to exploit.
Saturdays are worse, and Sunday service practically nonexistent. In
contrast, BART has much more service, seven days a week.

Whether you take BART or another commuter rail line, you pay for the
number of "zones" you cross. The "unlimited passes" those other lines
sell are limited by the number of zones they're good for. For example,
if you go from A to D every day, you can get a monthly A to D fare
pass, at a slight discount from the 23 or so weekday round trips. The
big savings would be for the free weekend trips downtown. But, again,
weekend service is even less frequent than during the week.

>
> What would it take to change this? An act of congress? A measure on the ballot? Does anybody else care?

More passenger trips for no more money coming in? What advantage would
that be to BART? Consider the added wear and tear alone. Those new
rail cars cost $2.2 million each. Who exactly would benefit? The daily
commuters would be subsidizing the frequent users.

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> Why doesn't BART sell unlimited passes?
>

I'd say it's a matter of distance. At its furthest reaches, New York's
subway system is only 16 miles. At its furthest reaches, BART is 50 miles
across. To offer unlimited rides I think BART would have to charge so much
that none but the longest commuters would buy such a pass.

I could be totally wrong about this, but I'm fairly sure this is the
situation. Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.
Caltrain is zoned. Well, BART is zoned, too, but its zones are way smaller.

[Keith Keller]

On 2012-06-22, David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I could be totally wrong about this, but I'm fairly sure this is the
> situation. Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.
> Caltrain is zoned. Well, BART is zoned, too, but its zones are way smaller.

BART could create zones for the purpose of selling monthly passes. The
only reasonable explanations I can think of are laziness or
incompetence.

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[spamtrap1888]

On Jun 22, 7:11 am, Keith Keller <kkeller-use...@wombat.san-
francisco.ca.us> wrote:

> On 2012-06-22, David Kaye <sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I could be totally wrong about this, but I'm fairly sure this is the
> > situation.  Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.
> > Caltrain is zoned.  Well, BART is zoned, too, but its zones are way smaller.
>
> BART could create zones for the purpose of selling monthly passes.  The
> only reasonable explanations I can think of are laziness or
> incompetence.
>

Sure, because cutting revenue while increasing ridership spells
competence for a commuter rail line.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 6/22/12 1:46 AM, David Kaye wrote:
>
> Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.

Actually, Caltrain *DOES* offer unlimited monthly passes.

The difference between BART and all the other Bay Area transit systems that
DO offer unlimited monthly passes is that BART is the only one that 100%
gated. You have to always go through an entry gate to board BART.

Monthly passes make a lot of sense on Proof-of-payment systems like Caltrain
or VTA's Light Rail system. It helps ensure more people are paying into the
system that they use. Cuts down on the number of people who might seek a
free ride on the transit system here and there.

And for bus only systems, monthly passes help speed up the boarding of buses
by a significant factor, so it's a big plus for those systems too.

There's no advantage for BART to offer a monthly unlimited pass, so they don't.


- Peter

[van...@vsta.org]

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
> There's no advantage for BART to offer a monthly unlimited pass, so they don't.

With cell phones, a lot of people prefer "all you can eat" plans even though,
in fact, they would end up paying less with a metered one; the simplicity is
worth a premium to them. I'd guess that *if* a BART unlimited pass would
provide an upside to BART, it would be because people would pay a premium to
simply know that they can ride whenever they wish, without screwing around
with balances and refills.

--
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[spamtrap1888]

On Jun 22, 10:28 am, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/12 1:46 AM, David Kaye wrote:
>
>
>
> > Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.
>
> Actually, Caltrain *DOES* offer unlimited monthly passes.

True. You could always buy a six-zone pass -- the maximum number of
zones -- for a mere $338, and ride anywhere that Caltrain goes, any
time you like. Would that suit the OP, I wonder.

>
> The difference between BART and all the other Bay Area transit systems that
> DO offer unlimited monthly passes is that BART is the only one that 100%
> gated.  You have to always go through an entry gate to board BART.

Commuter rail in Chicago is zoned, but the Metra Electric line at
least used to make you go through faregates. I wonder how the monthly
pass works there.

[David Kaye]

"Peter Lawrence" <humm...@aol.com> wrote

>
> Actually, Caltrain *DOES* offer unlimited monthly passes.

But notice that their "unlimited" passes are all zoned. To me this is not an
unlimited pass.

[Keith Keller]

On 2012-06-22, spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, because cutting revenue while increasing ridership spells
> competence for a commuter rail line.

A competent organization could come up with an implementation such that
it was revenue-neutral. Say, for example, that the stations 12th St.,
19th St., Lake Merritt, and West Oakland comprised one zone, and
Embarcadero to Civic Center comprised another zone. The one-way fare
for that trip is about $3. That's $6/day, and if you guess on 22 work
days a month, if you price a pass at about $135 for that zone you should
be in the ballpark. You'd do similar calculations for other zones.

The zones can't be that hard to define either. Here's one just off the
top of my head.

A: SFO Airport (separate so that BART can suck down its surcharges)
B: remaining San Mateo County stations
C: Balboa-16th
D: Civic-Embarcadero
E: West Oakland, Lake Merritt, 12th, 19th
F: MacArthur, Rockridge, Ashby, Berkeley, N.Berkeley
G: El Cerrito-Richmond
H: Orinda-W.Creek
I: P.Hill-Pittsburg
J: Fruitvale-S.Leandro
K: Castro Valley, Bay Fair-S.Hayward
L: U.City-Fremont (and new stations south)

If you took more than five minutes you could probably combine zones and
do a better job than the above. But now a monthly pass between L and D
would be about $240-250 or so. I think fewer zones is easier for
riders, but harder to keep fares fair for all riders in a big zone.

[SMS]

If you really want it to be totally unlimited you buy it between the
furthest zones.

[Peter Lawrence]

Exactly. That would allow one go anywhere anytime on Caltrain, though for
that vast majority of Caltrain riders they probably would never travel south
of the Zone 4, so a Zone 1 to Zone 4 monthly pass would be sufficient for
95% of all Caltrain passengers.


- Peter

[SMS]

On 6/22/2012 11:14 AM, van...@vsta.org wrote:
> Peter Lawrence<humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> There's no advantage for BART to offer a monthly unlimited pass, so they don't.
>
> With cell phones, a lot of people prefer "all you can eat" plans even though,
> in fact, they would end up paying less with a metered one; the simplicity is
> worth a premium to them.

I'm not sure they prefer them, it's that the way many carriers price
things it just isn't that much difference between limited and unlimited.

One thing with cell phones is that people have become so addicted to
subsidized phones that they've lost all their math skills. I.e., you can
have an iPhone on AT&T's network with unlimited voice, text, and data
for $45/month, but you bring the iPhone. You don't get the $450 subsidy
($18.75/month over 24 months), but it's still far less expensive over
the 24 months.

> I'd guess that *if* a BART unlimited pass would
> provide an upside to BART, it would be because people would pay a premium to
> simply know that they can ride whenever they wish, without screwing around
> with balances and refills.

Commuters that take one round trip per day know the cost. They would not
pay a premium. For tourists making many trips per day it might be worth
it, but BART is of limited use for them. I like the system in Shanghai
where you can buy a 3 day pass for 45 RMB that works on both the subway
and buses. It's a bad deal for commuters who would be unlikely to spend
15 RMB per day on transit, but it was a good deal for us since we were
using the system a lot. The Muni day pass is a pretty poor deal
considering transfers are free and good for at least 90 minutes.

[Mark Mellin]

In article <js2dmr$tos$1...@dont-email.me>, "David Kaye" wrote:
> "Peter Lawrence" wrote

> >
> > Actually, Caltrain *DOES* offer unlimited monthly passes.
>
> But notice that their "unlimited" passes are all zoned. To me this is not an
> unlimited pass.

Employer/University sponsored Go Passes are not:

<http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/tickettypes/Go_Pass.html>

- Mark

--
Mark Mellin San Mateo Village, CA 94403 USA

[Jack Hamilton]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:28:11 -0700, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On 6/22/12 1:46 AM, David Kaye wrote:
>>
>> Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.
>
>Actually, Caltrain *DOES* offer unlimited monthly passes.

And on weekends and holidays those passes are good for the entire
system, regardless of the weekday zones.

If you had a weekend-only job, a San Francisco <-> San Jose monthly
ticket would cost you $73. Not a bad deal if you could live with the
limited service.

>The difference between BART and all the other Bay Area transit systems that
>DO offer unlimited monthly passes is that BART is the only one that 100%
>gated. You have to always go through an entry gate to board BART.

The Capitol Corridor trains are also effectively gated. Every
passenger's ticket is checked on every trip - it's not Proof Of Payment.
And they offer unlimited passes (unfortunately, they don't have the
anywhere-on-weekends policy).

>There's no advantage for BART to offer a monthly unlimited pass, so they don't.

That's basically it.

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:56:59 PM UTC-7, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Jun 21, 8:36 pm, hannahfontan...@gmail.com wrote:
>What advantage would that be to BART?

The advantages would be to the riders. Remember BART is a public service. We voted BART in, we can also use the ballot box to force changes. We also have the ability to put BART out of business and replace it with one that is focused on the passengers - reasonably priced unlimited ride passes. It's not a new concept. Lots of other agencies do the same thing.

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> The advantages would be to the riders. Remember BART is a public service.
> We voted BART in, we can also use the ballot box to force changes. We also
> have
> the ability to put BART out of business and replace it with one that is
> focused
> on the passengers

How is BART not focused on passengers? BART even with its expensive
infrastructural shortcomings is immensely popular. BART is so popular it's
at capacity. They can't run any longer trains; all they can do is buy more
trains, hire more operators, and reduce the headway.

If anything BART suffers from under-planning. PBTB didn't think that BART
was going to do more than 260,000 riders per day. And after 3 years in
operation BART did only 173,000. But today, as of the June report, BART has
373,000 riders per day (per BART website). That's 43% higher than design.

So obviously, BART is not only working, but working too well.

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

It's charging insane fares - fares that are far above those other transit agencies charge. If CalTrain can offer a reasonably priced monthly pass, so can BART. If they really can't, perhaps it's time to think about replacing it.

Unless of course you like being overcharged for your BART tickets. I'll bet most would appreciate a fare cut.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 7/6/12 12:39 PM, hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Unless of course you like being overcharged for your BART tickets. I'll bet most would appreciate a fare cut.

And most people would prefer not having to pay any taxes too.

BART is not making a huge surplus the last time I checked, so I don't know
why one would think that BART could afford to cut fares and still be in the
black. Unless your the federal government, all other government agencies
need to balance their books somehow.


- Peter

[Peter Lawrence]

On 7/6/12 12:39 PM, hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> If CalTrain can offer a reasonably priced monthly pass, so can BART.

And Caltrain is teetering on bankruptcy. Caltrain's future if far from certain.


- Peter

[Scott Lurndal]

When has farebox recovery _ever_ covered the costs of BART?

If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
(which -requires- grade separation), they might actually be able
to get closer to farebox recovery covering the operational costs
(but not the construction costs).

But it would have been a whole hell of a lot cheaper.

scott

[John David Galt]

>> If anything BART suffers from under-planning. PBTB didn't think that BART
>> was going to do more than 260,000 riders per day. And after 3 years in
>> operation BART did only 173,000. But today, as of the June report, BART has
>> 373,000 riders per day (per BART website). That's 43% higher than design.
>>
>> So obviously, BART is not only working, but working too well.

> It's charging insane fares - fares that are far above those other transit
> agencies charge. If CalTrain can offer a reasonably priced monthly pass, so
> can BART. If they really can't, perhaps it's time to think about replacing it.

Why shouldn't the same logic apply to transit that you leftists are so eager
to apply to car drivers?

If BART is overcrowded, it should raise its fares until it isn't anymore.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 7/6/12 4:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> writes:
>> On 7/6/12 12:39 PM, hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless of course you like being overcharged for your BART tickets. I'll bet most would appreciate a fare cut.
>>
>> And most people would prefer not having to pay any taxes too.
>>
>> BART is not making a huge surplus the last time I checked, so I don't know
>> why one would think that BART could afford to cut fares and still be in the
>> black. Unless your the federal government, all other government agencies
>> need to balance their books somehow.
>>
>
> When has farebox recovery _ever_ covered the costs of BART?

BART, like most transit agencies, doesn't need the income from the farebox
to cover 100% of their costs since they get revenue from other sources. But
BART does have to live within its means and can't spend more than what they
receive from all their income sources including their sales and property
taxes, along with their farebox and other sources of income like the
in-station and in-train advertising.

> If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
> catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
> (which -requires- grade separation), they might actually be able
> to get closer to farebox recovery covering the operational costs
> (but not the construction costs).
>
> But it would have been a whole hell of a lot cheaper.

Would have, could have, should have...

Can't redo the bad decisions of the past.


- Peter

[Peter Lawrence]

On 7/6/12 5:17 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>
> If BART is overcrowded, it should raise its fares until it isn't anymore.

I thought the BART board of directors have been considering congestion
pricing (charging more to ride BART during peak hours).


- Peter

[van...@vsta.org]

Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
> catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
> (which -requires- grade separation), they might actually be able
> to get closer to farebox recovery covering the operational costs
> (but not the construction costs).

Remember that early on, BART was a very big *subway* play. Third rail is
basically subway technology, because you can fit into smaller bores which are
much cheaper to build. When you think about tunneling under SF, and those
formed tunnels on the bay bed, it almost makes sense.

> But it would have been a whole hell of a lot cheaper.

Indeed. When I look at mile after mile of subway technology as BART rolls
towards Pleasanton, it sure feels like the tail wagging the dog. But seeing
as it's about as good as transit gets in the Bay Area, it's hard to throw too
many stones at it. It runs often and goes a lot of places people want to go.
Whatta concept.

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> It's charging insane fares - fares that are far above those other transit
> agencies charge.
> If CalTrain can offer a reasonably priced monthly pass, so can BART.

Different agencies, different infrastructure, different rolling stock,
different contracts with workers, different taxing structures, etc.
Comparing BART to Caltrain is like comparing apples to beef jerky.

> Unless of course you like being overcharged for your BART tickets. I'll
> bet most would
> appreciate a fare cut.
>

Don't forget that fare cuts bring the riff-raff in. Portland had a terrible
problem when they introduced their Fareless Square with free downtown bus
fare. Turned out that kids took off from school and rode the buses all day.
In the Bay Area no doubt you'd have people sleeping on BART all day and
evening.

[David Kaye]

"Scott Lurndal" <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote

>
> When has farebox recovery _ever_ covered the costs of BART?

Farebox revenue hasn't covered expenses for local transit in any North
American city since the early 1950s. Trains and buses are expensive to
operate. I think the Muni only makes a profit on the 38, F, and N lines. I
don't even think the $5 cable car fare even begins to cover the costs of
running the cable cars.

[David Kaye]

<van...@vsta.org> wrote

> Indeed. When I look at mile after mile of subway technology as BART rolls
> towards Pleasanton, it sure feels like the tail wagging the dog. But
> seeing
> as it's about as good as transit gets in the Bay Area, it's hard to throw
> too
> many stones at it. It runs often and goes a lot of places people want to
> go.
> Whatta concept.

And when BART was being touted to the public, they didn't call it a "train"
because trains had a bad connotation. The SP was running ragged old cars on
the SF/SJ line (today's Caltrain). Passenger rail service on the East Coast
had a bad reputation. Trains were out. BART cars were designed to
look/feel more like aircraft because in those days jets were cool and trains
weren't. Remember, BART had to sell the largest bond measure in American
history to people in counties that didn't like each other! (This is in
large part why Marin and San Mateo folks didn't want to be part of BART.
They hated SF, even though they worked here. They hated Alameda County even
more because they felt it was a low-class place.

So, BART did a HUGE sell job to get voters to approve the bond issue. It
was sleek, it was new, it would be the envy of the rest of the nation, maybe
the world. A regular old choo-choo train wouldn't have been approved. It
just wouldn't.

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

You don't get it. BART is a public service - the people have the final say. If the people don't like it, they can change it. Obviously not enough people care about the high fares or they would have demanded changes.

[John David Galt]

>>> It's charging insane fares - fares that are far above those other transit
>>> agencies charge. If CalTrain can offer a reasonably priced monthly pass, so
>>> can BART. If they really can't, perhaps it's time to think about replacing it.

>> Why shouldn't the same logic apply to transit that you leftists are so eager
>> to apply to car drivers?
>>
>> If BART is overcrowded, it should raise its fares until it isn't anymore.

> You don't get it. BART is a public service - the people have the final say. If
> the people don't like it, they can change it. Obviously not enough people care
> about the high fares or they would have demanded changes.

Fares aren't "insane" if enough people are willing to pay them to keep the system
crowded or even overcrowded.

If "the people" successfully petition BART's board (or enact an initiative) that
lowers fares, it will just become more crowded, to the point where waiting time
in lines drives the "excess" people away, if the fire marshal doesn't close it
first.

[sms88]

Airlines have also never made a profit when the government subsidies are
factored in.

Not sure if the high speed rail is a good idea or not, but the fact that
it will never make a profit is not a good argument against it, when you
consider the fact that all transit requires subsidies.

[sms88]

On 7/6/2012 4:25 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
> catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
> (which -requires- grade separation), they might actually be able
> to get closer to farebox recovery covering the operational costs
> (but not the construction costs).
>
> But it would have been a whole hell of a lot cheaper.

Probably not any cheaper to build the original system given the much
lower cost of tunnels without overhead wires. Factoring in all the
expansion, which is nearly all above ground, it would have been cheaper
in the long run, especially considering the lower cost of rolling stock.

Without grade separation the system would suck. It's already too slow.
You'd have a CalTrain like system with bigger headways and the capacity
would suffer.

[Patrick Scheible]

The central parts of the system would suck. It would be nice to be able
to build non-grade-separated lines for service to places like Livermore,
where the trains would rarely run more often than every 20 minutes.

-- Patrick

[sms88]

On 7/7/2012 5:38 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:

> The central parts of the system would suck. It would be nice to be able
> to build non-grade-separated lines for service to places like Livermore,
> where the trains would rarely run more often than every 20 minutes.

When the trains run in the freeway median it's really not an issue is it?

[David Kaye]

"John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote

> Fares aren't "insane" if enough people are willing to pay them to keep the
> system
> crowded or even overcrowded.

Exactly. What's more, if someone lived in Concord and commuted to Fremont,
for instance, I'd wager they could ditch their car and save money by riding
BART. Cars can be tremendously expensive to use for commutes.

[Greegor]

On Jul 6, 6:25 pm, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
[...]

> When has farebox recovery _ever_ covered the costs of BART?

With most metro transit systems, fares paid
are only a tiny share of the cost of the trip.

My area was flooded in June of 2008 and
our local metro transit (bus) system lost their
main depot, offices, maintenance and
fare handling/counting facilities.

Nobody had to pay ANY fare for about a year.

I noticed a few changes in people's behavior.

Ridership went up considerably.
Some was volunteers and people helping out
with flood recovery.

Others were opportunistic, but some others
were merely very sensitive to the cost of fares.

I saw two guys jump on the bus to go two blocks!

But the increase in ridership merely occupied
part of the underfilled buses. It did not require
adding capacity.

More interesting to me was the amazing decrease
in ridership when they resumed charging the piddly fare.

Apparently the "token" amount charged as fare
makes a big difference.

Riders are amazingly sensitive to that piddly fare.

Another city nearby, a major university town, runs
a metro transit system, but when I visit there I never
need to use it because the University runs their own
fleet of buses, hires students to drive them, charges
no fare and it's open to the general public.

In a different town the city's development board
or something like that covered the part that
would have been paid by fares.

In those two no fare situations the transit
agency saved the not so small cost of
operating fare boxes.

It's conceivable that in some transit systems
the cost of repairing, replacing and routine
emptying and maintenance of the fare box ALONE
costs more than it takes in.

This can apparently be a reason to get a
sponsor and drop the use of a fare box completely.

I'm not saying that this would be the case in
an area with a population density like the
Bay Area, but some of these considerations
still figure into the big picture no doubt.

Is there ANY metro transit system in the USA
where the fares collected come anywhere close
to covering the HUGE costs of operation?

I have always looked at metro transit systems
as an expensive part of our infrastructure much
like the monumental costs of maintaining
highways and streets.

Lookout BART, lots of other big Metro areas
have been getting some very nice light rail
systems in the last decade.

BART's older and more famous, but lots
of other areas have been getting light rail too.

Sometimes I wonder if mass transit is not really
just a backup plan, a "dry run" for when some
catastrophic failure or economic crash
shuts off the oil for automobiles.

When we had a bad ice storm once the city
had fire engines doing taxi service to deliver
medical personnel to their jobs at hospitals.

The heavy fire engines could move on the ice
when most other vehicles could not.

hannahfontana: In April you posted how you
panhandle on a street nearby Disneyland
and collect $300 plus a day.
Why did you leave that April gig in Anaheim
only to complain in June about the cost
of BART fares?

Still from a Los Angeles Verizon DSL IP?
108.23.147.17

WTF?

[SMS]

Once you own a car, the big cost for commutes is not just fuel, it's
often parking and tolls.

For Concord to Fremont it's unlikely that anyone would take BART as the
route is too roundabout and it would take too long. For that kind of
commute you'd need BART to run down the median of 680 to Fremont and San
Jose. The route of the BART extension to San Jose is rather useless. The
big daily commute is from Concord/Walnut Creek/Pleasanton to San Jose.
The Capital Corridor already serves the San Jose to East Bay route, I
know someone who commutes on it from Santa Clara station to Emeryville
(one more commute-time train on that line would really help!).
Similarly, few people would take BART from San Jose to San Francisco via
the east bay. Commuters would take CalTrain, those going up on the
weekend, usually with multiple passengers, would probably drive, or
worst case take CalTrain.

The other trend that hurts mass transit systems is that so many large
corporations are adopting the Asian model of providing bus
transportation directly to their facilities at no cost to the employee.
I see Apple's fleet of buses every day. Google has a similar fleet, as
does Genentech.

Caltrain is depending on electrification money from high speed rail to
survive. What Caltrain needs to do right now is what other commuter
systems have done, and operate regular service only on weekdays. For
special weekend events (baseball and football games) they can run trains
as well. For the rest of the times, if they provide service at all prior
to electrification, they need to buy maybe four DMUs to run on weekends
and off-peak. These are less expensive to operate than full trains.

[Scott Lurndal]

Of course, cars can be used for far more than just commuting, something
that BART cannot, since BART doesn't cover anywhere even _close_ to the
number of destinations reachable in a single trip by automobile.

And even with traffic, travel time is almost always less via car than
via public transit (with a couple of exceptions like downtown berkely to
downtown SF), but the majority of commutes are quicker by auto. For
example, I can use VTA light rail, it takes an hour+ to travel 14 miles,
which I can drive at 9:00am in 18 minutes - why should I waste my valuable
time?

[Scott Lurndal]

But, unlike third-rail systems, you can gradually grade-separate
individual crossings without perturbing the system overly much
(a al san carlos). Start non-grade separated and over many years,
grade separate additional crossings as funding is available.

scott

[David Kaye]

"Scott Lurndal" <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote

> Of course, cars can be used for far more than just commuting, something
> that BART cannot, since BART doesn't cover anywhere even _close_ to the
> number of destinations reachable in a single trip by automobile.

I was SPECIFICALLY talking about commuting, which is why I mentioned
commuting. Leave the car at home and take BART to and from work and those
people won't be complaining about the cost of BART. With the gas and wear
and tear saved and the lower insurance cost for fewer miles driven, BART
will be cheaper than driving.

>
> And even with traffic, travel time is almost always less via car than
> via public transit (with a couple of exceptions like downtown berkely to
> downtown SF), but the majority of commutes are quicker by auto.

I was once living near 24th Street BART and took a consulting job at AT&T's
San Ramon center. I took BART to Walnut Creek and the AT&T shuttle to the
San Ramon campus. It was at least 20 minutes faster than driving, believe
it or not.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 7/8/12 2:24 AM, Greegor wrote:
>
> BART's older and more famous, but lots
> of other areas have been getting light rail too.

BART isn't light rail, it's considered to be heavy rail.


- Peter

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

So is Metrolink - and they don't seem to have a problem with unlimited monthly passes. It gets even better. For $10, you can ride the entire system from 7:00pm Friday until 11:59pm Sunday. Orange County sells a day pass for $7 that allows you to ride all day on buses and trains within the county.

If they can do it, so can BART. The only reason they don't is GREED.

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> If they can do it, so can BART. The only reason they don't is GREED.

Uh, greed by who exactly? The board of directors? They're already captains
of business; they don't even need their BART board salaries. So, given that
BART is a public utility, who is the beneficiary of this so-called greed?

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

You should know by now how things work in the government. We're almost as bad as Mexico. Greedy corrupt politicians who benefit greatly.

BART is too expensive to ride and to operate. We need to think about replacing it with something that works.

Put it on the ballot and I predict it will win by a landslide. It shouldn't cost $6.30 for a round trip ticket from SF to Oakland. A similar trip in LA costs less than half.

We need to get a petitiion going. It's time to undo this horrible injustice. Who's with me?

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> You should know by now how things work in the government. We're almost as
> bad as Mexico.
> Greedy corrupt politicians who benefit greatly.

I read a lot of stupid things, but this is the most stupid one I've read
this week. It's absurd to compare American politics to Mexican politics.
Secondly, you're insulting the BART board of directors for no reason
whatsoever. You're implying that the BART board members are taking some
kind of financial gain from the prices they've set.

The REAL reason the prices are set the way they are is that BART needs to
run a railroad. It's expensive to operate a railroad.

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

Tell that to Metrolink and the dozens of other commuter railroads that can manage to do the job for less. BART is incompetent. If they can change, they need to be replaced.

We need to let the public decide. Time to start printing up some fliers.

[SMS]

On 7/9/2012 11:06 AM, David Kaye wrote:
> <hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> You should know by now how things work in the government. We're almost as
>> bad as Mexico.
>> Greedy corrupt politicians who benefit greatly.
>
> I read a lot of stupid things, but this is the most stupid one I've read
> this week.

Then you didn't read about Valarie Hodges in Louisiana. Well that was
last week technically.

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> Tell that to Metrolink and the dozens of other commuter railroads that can
> manage to
> do the job for less. BART is incompetent. If they can change, they need to
> be replaced.

Understand that didn't like BART's unique design because it was expensive.
I thought that Bechtel was a crooked company that was trying to push faulty
designs on an unsuspecting public.

BUT THEN I spend an afternoon in the Prelinger Library in SF, where Rick
Prelinger has amassed a huge collection of BART ephemera, including
everything from early brochures to push bond issues to actual resumes of
engineers hired to design the BART system.

You young'uns have to realize these things:

(1) Train travel was considered antiquated in the 1950s when BART was
proposed, and considered off the table for any serious discussion by the
early 1960s. By then rail travel had dropped so low that passenger service
was being curtailed or abandoned. Remember that by the late 50s interurban
rail and city street car lines had been torn up. Yeah, there was a
conspiracy ("Roger Rabbit"), but even so, cities all across the USA had
really old rail cars that needed to be replaced at a time when people had
turned to automobile travel. RAIL WASN'T COOL and it wasn't going to get
funding.

(2) It was clear from the 1940s on that commute travel would become gridlock
by the 1960s. This is why the Southern Crossing from Candlestick to
Alameda/San Leandro was proposed. But voters voted it down.

(3) The 1960s was also a time when people began fighting back against the
freeways, led by people like Zoanne Nordstrom (who still lives in Glen Park,
a delightful lady...) with the help of then mayor Joseph Alioto. The plan
had been to criss-cross SF with freeways, including a double-decker between
the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate bridge, totally obscuring any views along
the waterfront. The Embarcadero freeway removed after the 1989 quake was
just a small piece of tha freeway, blocked before they were able to finish
it.

(4) So, that to do? Studies showed that congestion was going to get
horrible. There was already rail on the Bay Bridge (until 1958) but there
simply wasn't enough capacity to use it for a new rail system. Instead, the
state decided to increase capacity and reduce car accidents by turning the
decks into one-ways and eliminating the dedicated (and wasteful) track
right-of-way on the bridge.

(5) Now, where to put a rail system? It would HAVE to be undergrounded and
under-bayed. There was no alternative. BART needed to move as many people
under the bay as the Bay Bridge would be attempting to move on top of the
bay. BART was going to have to become a HUGE undertaking.

(6) Bechtel originally wanted 5 counties to participate, but Marin and San
Mateo balked because the residents hated having to "associate" with people
in San Francisco and Oakland. They'd drive in and out, but hell, they
didn't want to have to ride a train with THOSE people. Seriously. So, the
boards of supervisors of San Mateo and Marin counties followed their
constituents and voted down inclusion into the BART system.

(7) This left the BARTD board in a mess. They needed LOTS of property tax
money to build BART, but with only 3 counties participating, they had to
pass a HUGE bond issue ($750 million, the largest bond issue ever attempted
in American history), AND they had to scale back the design to fit their new
reduced budget.

(8) This required BART to be sold as a unique airline-type form of travel,
not as rail travel. People didn't like rail anymore, remember? So, BART
cars were designed by Rohr Corporation, an aerospace company, not a train
company. The cars looked UNLIKE anything that had ever been designed for a
railroad. AND NO OVERHEAD WIRES!

(9) There was a mandate that BART wasn't to be referred to as a train. The
"next BART" would arrive in 10 minutes. Photos of BART cars were always
taken in the early days so that people didn't see the wheels. The BARTD
board wanted people to think Monorail, not railroad. Remember that in the
1960s jet-set Monorail was the in thing for ground transporation.

(10) Remember the counties not wanting to be a part of any BART that
included SF and Oakland? So strong was the opposition that the West Oakland
BART station was originally named "Oakland West" to avoid the crime stigma
of West Oakland. BART still refers to that station internally as "OW" not
as "WO".

So, there you have it. While we may all disagree with BART's gauge, its
design, its expensive right-of-ways, its 3rd rail system, etc., it's very
likely that the BARTD board's acceptance of the Bechtel suggestions may have
been the only way BART could have been built in the political climate of the
early 1960s.

Seriously.

[Patrick Scheible]

BART is expensive. But what, exactly, do you have in mind replacing it
with, and how much would it cost? BART is built and the bonds have to
be paid.

-- Patrick

[Patrick Scheible]

"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> writes:

> I read a lot of stupid things, but this is the most stupid one I've read
> this week.

It's only Monday :)

-- Patrick

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, Patrick Scheible wrote:

> BART is expensive. But what, exactly, do you have in mind replacing it
> with, and how much would it cost?

How about something like Vancouver's sky train? It's affordable and proven to work. I think they also use the same system for Detroit's people mover.

> BART is built and the bonds have to be paid.
>
> -- Patrick

BART began operation on September 11, 1972 (what a date for an anniversary), just shy of 40 years ago. They still haven't paid off their construction bonds? Something is serioiusly wrong here.

[David Kaye]

<hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote

> BART began operation on September 11, 1972 (what a date for an
> anniversary),
> just shy of 40 years ago. They still haven't paid off their construction
> bonds? Something is serioiusly wrong here.

What makes you think BART stopped building in 1972? Since then there have
been extensions to Colma, SSF, Millbrae, and SFO. There was also the
Pittsburg extension, and the Pleasanton extension.

[SMS]

As well as the extension to San Jose, now being built.

[Jack Hamilton]

On 06 Jul 2012 23:25:27 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
>catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
>(which -requires- grade separation), they might actually be able
>to get closer to farebox recovery covering the operational costs
>(but not the construction costs).

Without grade separation, trains would get stuck in traffic and not run
on time. And they wouldn't be able to run as fast.

Gauge is more difficult. The difficulty with using standard gauge is
that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out. What kind of
design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
rail but not freight?

[John David Galt]

On 2012-07-14 11:07, Jack Hamilton wrote:
> Gauge is more difficult. The difficulty with using standard gauge is
> that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out. What kind of
> design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
> rail but not freight?

BART's extra wide gauge (5'6, as I recall) was a deliberate design "feature"
designed to make it much more expensive to use standard equipment, thus
locking in the vendors who lobbied for and built the original system. This
is the same kind of corruption that ran all through military procurement in
the Cold War.

BART's tunnel heights are less than standard for the same reason. Thus you
could never run either the existing Caltrain or Muni Metro cars through BART
tunnels, even with the wheel sets changed (for gauge).

Both the geniuses who came up with these ideas at Bechtel, and the paid-for
politicians like Rod Diridon who let them happen, should be in jail for graft.

[SMS]

At the time, the reason they said that they needed the wider gauge for
stability in high wind areas in the east bay.

There's a tendency for uninformed people to scream about corruption and
graft without making any effort to find out the reasons behind seemingly
strange decisions. The third rail system was cheaper to build because
the tunnel height could be less. There's really no such thing as
off-the-shelf new rolling stock and they probably thought that when
buying new equipment that it didn't make much difference. But for used
equipment it may have been a good idea to go with standard guage. AS to
overhead versus third rail, they were building a subway system, and
subway systems in the U.S. used third-rail power (weren't the only othe
subways at the time in Chicago and New York? There are other countries
with 5 ft 6 in gauge, it's not just BART that uses it.

[John David Galt]

On 2012-07-14 11:07, Jack Hamilton wrote:

> Gauge is more difficult. The difficulty with using standard gauge is
> that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out. What kind of
> design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
> rail but not freight?

That's a silly comment. Freight trains are kept out by the fact that BART's
track is 100% owned by the district that operates it and isn't connected to the
track of any freight railroad (both facts that are NOT true of Caltrain, ACE,
or other services that didn't begin by building their own complete networks).

If BART had been built standard gauge and with standard size tunnels, those two
facts would still have kept the freight trains out.

[Patrick Scheible]

Jack Hamilton <j...@acm.org> writes:

> On 06 Jul 2012 23:25:27 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
>>catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
>>(which -requires- grade separation), they might actually be able
>>to get closer to farebox recovery covering the operational costs
>>(but not the construction costs).
>
> Without grade separation, trains would get stuck in traffic and not run
> on time. And they wouldn't be able to run as fast.

Actually, the motor vehicle traffic would be stuck waiting for the
trains, just like Caltrain, freight railroads, etc.

Regular passenger trains can operate up to 79 mph without in-cab
signalling and automatic braking if the operator is nonresponsive. I
don't remember grade separations being a factor in that regulation, but
even if they do it's only 1 mph.

> Gauge is more difficult. The difficulty with using standard gauge is
> that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out. What kind of
> design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
> rail but not freight?

The kind of design in which BART owns the tracks and says what can
operate over them. Washington DC's Metro is standard gauge, but I don't
see freight trains running through it.

-- Patrick

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:51:23 PM UTC-7, John David Galt wrote:
> On 2012-07-14 11:07, Jack Hamilton wrote:

> &gt; Gauge is more difficult. The difficulty with using standard gauge is
> &gt; that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out. What kind of
> &gt; design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
> &gt; rail but not freight?
>
> That&#39;s a silly comment. Freight trains are kept out by the fact that BART&#39;s
> track is 100% owned by the district that operates it and isn&#39;t connected to the

> track of any freight railroad (both facts that are NOT true of Caltrain, ACE,

> or other services that didn&#39;t begin by building their own complete networks).

>
> If BART had been built standard gauge and with standard size tunnels, those two
> facts would still have kept the freight trains out.

BART is owned by the PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE. If we want to give it to some other entity, we have the right to do it - a simple measure on the ballot is all it would take.

It's time to fix this mess once and for all.

[Patrick Scheible]

So, who would you give it to who would magically pay all debts BART has,
operate and maintain BART, and do it all for less than what they're
charging now?

The decisions that made BART expensive have been made. We have to live
with them.

-- Patrick

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 16, 2012 2:31:28 PM UTC-7, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> hannahf...@gmail.com writes:
>
> &gt; On Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:51:23 PM UTC-7, John David Galt wrote:
> &gt;&gt; On 2012-07-14 11:07, Jack Hamilton wrote:
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; Gauge is more difficult. The difficulty with using standard gauge is
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out. What kind of
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; rail but not freight?
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; That&amp;#39;s a silly comment. Freight trains are kept out by the fact
> &gt;&gt; that BART&amp;#39;s
> &gt;&gt; track is 100% owned by the district that operates it and isn&amp;#39;t
> &gt;&gt; connected to the
> &gt;&gt; track of any freight railroad (both facts that are NOT true of Caltrain, ACE,
> &gt;&gt; or other services that didn&amp;#39;t begin by building their own
> &gt;&gt; complete networks).
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; If BART had been built standard gauge and with standard size
> &gt;&gt; tunnels, those two
> &gt;&gt; facts would still have kept the freight trains out.
> &gt;
> &gt; BART is owned by the PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE. If we want to give it to
> &gt; some other entity, we have the right to do it - a simple measure on
> &gt; the ballot is all it would take.
> &gt;
> &gt; It&#39;s time to fix this mess once and for all.

>
> So, who would you give it to who would magically pay all debts BART has,

> operate and maintain BART, and do it all for less than what they&#39;re

> charging now?
>
> The decisions that made BART expensive have been made. We have to live
> with them.
>
> -- Patrick

So we deal with it and we move on.

Look, if your wife were to go on spending sprees, year after year after year, would you say those were decisions you made and you just have to live with them? No, you'd fix the problem!

It's not too late to fix the problem!

[Keith Keller]

On 2012-07-16, hannahf...@gmail.com <hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So we deal with it and we move on.
>
> Look, if your wife were to go on spending sprees, year after year after year, would you say those were decisions you made and you just have to live with them? No, you'd fix the problem!
>
> It's not too late to fix the problem!

It *is* too late to fix the gauge of BART's tracks, unless you have
billions of dollars to rip out the existing track, lay down standard
gauge, and purchase a whole new fleet of cars, without disrupting
service too badly. To stretch your analogy a bit, it's as if your wife
bought a house in Livermore for $1m, and now it's worth $100k: are you
going to sell, take a huge hit, then try to buy a house in Fremont for
$500k? Or are you going to try to make the best of a bad situation in
Livermore?

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Patrick Scheible]

Some problems are just not fixable. You decide what gauge track to use,
then that's when you use. I guess in theory you could rip out the
track, scrap the rolling stock, rip out the 3rd rails, replace the
electrification system. Cost would be comparable to building new. Plus
you'd have 5-10 years in which BART was not operating.

BART is not comparable to overspending on consumer goods. The decisions
were made when BART was planned in the late 50s and early 60s. Pretty
much nothing can be done about it now. Replacing BART would be more
expensive, not less.

BART's fares are high in part because they're set to just about break
even on operating costs. Many bus systems and metros elsewhere have
higher operating subsidies.

-- Patrick

[Peter Lawrence]

On 7/14/12 11:18 AM, John David Galt wrote:
>
> Both the geniuses who came up with these ideas at Bechtel, and the paid-for
> politicians like Rod Diridon who let them happen, should be in jail for graft.

Not a fan Rod Diridon, but he was only in his late teens when BART was
conceived.


- Peter

[Jimmy]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> If they'd chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
> catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
> (which -requires- grade separation),

Third rail does not require grade separation. For example, consider
the LIRR.

Jimmy

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:45:00 PM UTC-7, Jimmy wrote:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> &gt; If they&#39;d chosen to use standard-gauge heavy-rail with overhead
> &gt; catenary instead of the proprietary-gauge third-rail system
> &gt; (which -requires- grade separation),

>
> Third rail does not require grade separation. For example, consider
> the LIRR.
>
> Jimmy

Chicago's CTA has several at grade crossings. The trains are long enough to bridge the gap.

[sms88]

On 7/16/2012 4:36 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:

> BART's fares are high in part because they're set to just about break
> even on operating costs. Many bus systems and metros elsewhere have
> higher operating subsidies.

BART has 64.5% fare box recovery. Caltrain is 51.3%. Both are high
compared to many other transit systems. In some very densely populated
areas in the world it's over 100%.

Of course air transportation is also heavily subsidized, just less directly.

[David Kaye]

"sms88" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>
> Of course air transportation is also heavily subsidized, just less
> directly.

For one thing, those hugely expensive airports are built, owned, and
maintained by various government entities.

[sms88]

Don't forget the subsidies related to the development and production of
airplanes as well.

[spamtrap1888]

On Jul 14, 11:18 am, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:

> On 2012-07-14 11:07, Jack Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Gauge is more difficult.  The difficulty with using standard gauge is
> > that it would be harder to keep the freight trains out.  What kind of
> > design would make it possible to run standard gauge electric passenger
> > rail but not freight?
>
> BART's extra wide gauge (5'6, as I recall) was a deliberate design "feature"
> designed to make it much more expensive to use standard equipment, thus
> locking in the vendors who lobbied for and built the original system.  This
> is the same kind of corruption that ran all through military procurement in
> the Cold War.

BART was a ground up design, and didn't need to respect the Roman
chariot standard.

>
> BART's tunnel heights are less than standard for the same reason.  Thus you
> could never run either the existing Caltrain or Muni Metro cars through BART
> tunnels, even with the wheel sets changed (for gauge).

Not really surprising that double deck cars could not run through
tunnels designed for single deck cars. Muni Metro cars are street
cars, never intended to run on heavy rail systems.

>
> Both the geniuses who came up with these ideas at Bechtel, and the paid-for
> politicians like Rod Diridon who let them happen, should be in jail for graft.

Sounds like the cross-bay tunnel (and now the Lake Elizabeth tunnel)
cost far less than if they had been sized for double deck cars.

[dhe...@gmail.com]

I really don't get all these people here who are arguing about "how normal it is that BART doesn't offer unlimited passes". I mean, have you guys ever been anywhere else in the US or in the world for that matter? BART is the only major transit system in the United States that does not offer unlimited passes. New York City offers a monthly pass allowing free use of its 200+ miles of rail and extensive bus network for $112 a month. They started this in 1998, 15 years ago.

So basically, it's everyone else but us. And yet we have these legions of people saying that "it's totally normal". Seriously...? Isn't extremely arrogant to believe that EVERYONE ELSE but us does it wrong but that we hold the universal truth?

I agree with those who say that BART should offer ZONED unlimited passes, similarly to the way Caltrain does, and be integrated with other local operators (most notably Muni). This is the way transit agencies work in London, Paris, Zurich, etc.

[SMS]

On 3/6/2013 11:20 PM, dhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I really don't get all these people here who are arguing about "how normal it is that BART doesn't offer unlimited passes". I mean, have you guys ever been anywhere else in the US or in the world for that matter?

I was in Beijing last year. No monthly passes. Ditto for Shanghai. Ditto
for Taipei.

Shanghai offered a three day pass which is good for tourists using the
buses and subway a lot, which we purchased, but it was not a good deal
for commuters since it was more expensive than pay-as-you-go for the
typical daily commute.

BART, and other systems, have obviously decided that there is no upside
in terms of revenue in offering monthly passes. On Caltrain there's an
obvious upside in that it's fare revenue that they are guaranteed to
collect.

I remember 10 ride tickets on Caltrain that I used to buy. Often no
conductor ever came by to void one ride. With the Clipper card, Caltrain
has implemented it so poorly that they are likely losing a lot of fare
revenue.

[Kenneth M. Lin]

On 2012-06-22, David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I could be totally wrong about this, but I'm fairly sure this is the
> situation. Notice that Caltrain doesn't have unlimited passes, either.
> Caltrain is zoned. Well, BART is zoned, too, but its zones are way
> smaller.

BART is run by complete idiots. Just look at their bike program where all
they did was take out a handicap seat in every car. Why not install hooks
to stabilize the bikes so they aren't bumping against other passengers? And
what's so special about the first car in the train that bikes aren't allowed
there?

Do they save that much money by not allowing cyclists to use elevators and
escalators? It seems like they are doing their best to discourage cyclists.

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-03-19, Kenneth M. Lin <kennet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Do they save that much money by not allowing cyclists to use elevators and
> escalators? It seems like they are doing their best to discourage cyclists.

They don't save any money by not allowing cyclists to use the elevators.
That's because they don't--bikes are actually permitted on the elevators.

And if you've ever been on an up escalator with a cyclist you'd easily
see why they're prohibited on escalators. On a crowded escalator, they
take up way too much room, and generally block people from walking on
the left. But even on a relatively empty escalator there is a risk of
the bike falling and hitting someone. That risk may be minimal, but why
should BART shoulder that liability?

And it's not as if bikes are the only devices not permitted on BART
escalators: carts and strollers are also prohibited. (I can't find the
exact guidelines on BART's web site, though I admit I only did a cursory
look.)

[SMS]

> cyclist.

Actually they've gone out of their way to accommodate cyclists. The
present trial to allow bicycles on trains even during peak commute hours
is one example. BART is extremely crowded during peak commute times and
bicycles take up a lot of extra space, even if it were possible to hang
them on hooks.

Commuters have been combining bicycle and trains on BART (and Caltrain)
for decades, but they have been doing so with a folding bicycle. There's
an initial expense of course but it's not a lot in the whole scheme of
things when you consider commute expenses. LA has been looking at a plan
to subsidize the purchase of folding bicycles,
<http://www.calstart.org/Projects/First-Mile/First-Mile-Projects/Folding-Bicycle-Subsidy-Program.aspx>.
I don't know why it's only for Dahon, but I suspect it has to with
former Dahon VP Josh Hon's beliefs in bicycle commuting.

On Caltrain the trains were so under-capacity that full size bicycles
were not a problem. Also, Caltrain's riders have been siphoned off by
companies that provide bus transportation for their employees.

[Jym Dyer]

Keith Keller purports:

> And if you've ever been on an up escalator with a cyclist you'd
> easily see why they're prohibited on escalators. On a crowded
> escalator, they take up way too much room, and generally block
> people from walking on the left.

=v= Fatuous nonsense. The handlebars are the widest part of a
bicycle, and are the same width as a rider's shoulders. If you
can't pass a cyclist, you can't pass human beings, since the
vast majority of humanity has shoulders.

=v= In fact the main problem on escalators are the earbudded
zombies who stand -- oblivious and functionally deaf -- in the
middle of the stairs.

> On a crowded escalator, they take up way too much room, and
> generally block people from walking on the left.

=v= Where "way too much room" means as wide as a human being.
With shoulders.

> But even on a relatively empty escalator there is a risk
> of the bike falling and hitting someone. That risk may
> be minimal, but why should BART shoulder that liability?

=v= Good point. Perhaps they should also ban luggage and
obesity, since greater mass multiplied by that same minimal
risk probably increases potential damage up to some millionth
of a percentage. Oh, the [shouldered] humanity!!!
<_Jym_>

[Jonz]

On 3/21/2013 11:02 PM, Jym Dyer wrote:
> Keith Keller purports:
>> And if you've ever been on an up escalator with a cyclist you'd
>> easily see why they're prohibited on escalators. On a crowded
>> escalator, they take up way too much room, and generally block
>> people from walking on the left.
>
> =v= Fatuous nonsense. The handlebars are the widest part of a
> bicycle, and are the same width as a rider's shoulders. If you
> can't pass a cyclist, you can't pass human beings, since the
> vast majority of humanity has shoulders.
>

Bullshit... The handlebars may be the widest part of a bicycle but all
the cyclists I have seen either carry the bike on one shoulder or, worse
yet, set the bicycle next to him/her on the escalator completely
blocking access for people who walk on the left.

Asking one of those idiots to please move the bicycle is like talking to
a zombie.

Jonz

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-03-22, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
>=v= Fatuous nonsense. The handlebars are the widest part of a
> bicycle, and are the same width as a rider's shoulders. If you
> can't pass a cyclist, you can't pass human beings, since the
> vast majority of humanity has shoulders.

Stating it doesn't make it true. When I ride, I certainly have to hold
my arms a significant distance away from my shoulders. I don't ride a
fancy bicycle, though.

And, of course, most cyclists stand to the side of their bike when
violating BART rules to bring it on the escalator.

>=v= In fact the main problem on escalators are the earbudded
> zombies who stand -- oblivious and functionally deaf -- in the
> middle of the stairs.

In my actual experience, people blocking the escalator is split
about equally between earbudded zombies, idiot bicyclists, and people
with too many bags.

>=v= Good point. Perhaps they should also ban luggage and
> obesity, since greater mass multiplied by that same minimal
> risk probably increases potential damage up to some millionth
> of a percentage. Oh, the [shouldered] humanity!!!

Presumably fat people are stable on one step. The luggage question is a
bit more vague since, as I mentioned and you conveniently ignored,
carts are also not permitted on escalators. How large does a piece of
luggage need to be before it's considered a "cart"? I have certainly
seen people with obscenely large bags on the escalator, who probably
should have thought better of the situation and taken the elevator.

Unfortunately, it's attitudes like yours which make people hate
cyclists, ultimately making it less convenient for casual cyclists
(like me) to ride. So, thanks much for making my commute more
difficult.

[Jym Dyer]

Keith Keller flamed:

> When I ride, I certainly have to hold my arms a significant
> distance away from my shoulders.

=v= Irrelevant, unless you're riding on the elevators.

> [M]ost cyclists stand to the side of their bike when violating

> BART rules to bring it on the escalator.

=v= The point is that it's entirely possible to do that without
being wider than a person on the escalator without a bike. Like
for example, turning sideways beside the bike. Inconceivable!

> I have certainly seen people with obscenely large bags on
> the escalator, who probably should have thought better of
> the situation and taken the elevator.

=v= At the risk of repeating myself: Oh, the humanity!!!

> Unfortunately, it's attitudes like yours which make people
> hate cyclists, ultimately making it less convenient for casual
> cyclists (like me) to ride. So, thanks much for making my
> commute more difficult.

=v= You're very welcome. But what, exactly, is the difference
between a "casual cyclist" and a commuter? Like most of the
planet, I commute by bike, but I'm not sure what that has to
do with casualness.

=v= Reality check: most of the world doesn't ban bikes from
escalators, and disaster does not ensue. It's a stupid rule,
existing in only two transit systems on this continent, for
no good reason.
<_Jym_>

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-03-25, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> Keith Keller flamed:

...you certainly deserved it, just as you deserve this one.

>> When I ride, I certainly have to hold my arms a significant
>> distance away from my shoulders.
>
>=v= Irrelevant, unless you're riding on the elevators.

Of course it's not. If the handlebars are wider than my shoulders, then
the way most people I have seen taking their bikes on BART escalators in
violation of their policies, their bikes are wider than a typical person.

>> [M]ost cyclists stand to the side of their bike when violating
>> BART rules to bring it on the escalator.
>
>=v= The point is that it's entirely possible to do that without
> being wider than a person on the escalator without a bike. Like
> for example, turning sideways beside the bike. Inconceivable!

Of course it's *possible*. How often do bikers taking their bikes on
escalators in violation of BART policy actually do this? I don't
believe I've ever seen it, but even if I have, let's just estimate that
90% of bikers violating BART's bikes on escalators policy do in fact
block the escalator while doing so. Now, consider that these folks are
already violating BART's policies--should we really believe that they
will suddenly stop and take their bikes up the escalator without
blocking it just because it's ''entirely possible''?

>> I have certainly seen people with obscenely large bags on
>> the escalator, who probably should have thought better of
>> the situation and taken the elevator.
>
>=v= At the risk of repeating myself: Oh, the humanity!!!

Your repeated faux outrage doesn't do anything to stop these folks from
blocking the escalator, does it? Nor does it change liability law in
the US.

>=v= You're very welcome. But what, exactly, is the difference
> between a "casual cyclist" and a commuter? Like most of the
> planet, I commute by bike, but I'm not sure what that has to
> do with casualness.

"Most of the planet"? Got any numbers to back this claim? I am
skeptical, considering your lack of credibility (see below).

It's not relevant anyway: you are nitpicking terminology instead of
addressing the point, which is that your obnoxious attitude towards
BART's bike policies alienates some of the people who might actually
ask the BART board to re-evaluate their bike policies and/or benefit
if some of those changes were implemented. For example, it would be
wonderful if BART allowed bikes on commute-hour trains, but because
bikers do things like block the escalator with their bikes, people
oppose any changes that benefit bikers, even those considerate enough to
use the stairs or elevator instead.

But if you want to nitpick, I'd say that a "casual bike commuter" (to
use a more accurate term) is one who doesn't necessarily bike for
recreational purposes, and would consider using a bike for commuting to
work only if the barriers for entry were not too high. For example, I
would like to use my bike as part of my commute, but BART's restrictions
on commute hours make it a logistical challenge. (Their restrictions on
bikes on escalators is certainly not a barrier.)

It seems clear that your tactic is "I am a biker and I demand full
access to BART no matter what!" Whether bikers ''deserve'' full access
or not, this seems like a poor position from which to start--it
antagonizes policymakers and the public. If you can not see that, then
nobody can help you.

>=v= Reality check: most of the world doesn't ban bikes from
> escalators, and disaster does not ensue. It's a stupid rule,
> existing in only two transit systems on this continent, for
> no good reason.

I'd be inclined to believe you, but your obnoxious attitude forces me
to view your claims with skepticism. So I took 10 minutes and checked
these transit operators.

New York LIRR:

http://www.mta.info/lirr/about/Bicycles/

" ii. Bicycles are not to be taken on escalators."

Washington Metro:

http://www.wmata.com/getting_around/bike_ride/guidelines.cfm

"Escalators and stairs may not be used except when special requests (for
emergency reasons) have been granted by Metro Station Managers, Metro
Transit Police or city/county police or fire officials."

Chicago CTA:

http://www.transitchicago.com/riding_cta/how_to_guides/biketrain.aspx

"To reach the platform level, use elevators whenever they are available.
Otherwise, carry your bicycle on ramps and stairways, allowing other
customers to clear before you go up or down the stairs. Bicycles are not
permitted on escalators."

And yes, these are all US operators, because we live in the US, and all
of these operators have to operate under US liability law. At any rate,
I have clearly delineated four operators in this country who forbid
bikes on escalators, in direct contradiction to your claim that only two
on the entire continent do. Ten minutes with a web browser have brought
all of your other factual claims into question. (And I didn't even look
past these operators, so I found zero who either permit bikes on
escalators or didn't have a stated policy.)

[Jimmy]

Keith Keller <kkeller-use...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> I have clearly delineated four operators in this country who forbid
> bikes on escalators, in direct contradiction to your claim that only two
> on the entire continent do.

On the East Coast transit systems I regularly use, people take bikes
on escalators all the time. It's against the rules on some of them,
but it doesn't matter -- nobody drops their bike, and people can
easily get by. And it seems *more* likely to drop your bike, or trip,
while walking on a staircase carrying a bike, compared to wheeling one
onto an escalator and standing still.

What surprises me about BART is that people mostly follow this rule,
and carry their bikes up the stairs. Is it strictly enforced?

Jimmy

[Keith Keller]

On 2013-04-09, Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> What surprises me about BART is that people mostly follow this rule,
> and carry their bikes up the stairs. Is it strictly enforced?

No. IME I'd say about 20-25% of bikers on BART use the escalator
instead of the stairs or elevator (elevator use is quite uncommon IME).
I've never seen a biker on the escalator told by a BART employee that
they're not supposed to take their bikes on the escalator.