Unfortunate news in today's San Francisco Chronicle:
Timely public transit helps those who can't afford or are otherwise unable to drive, but for the moment let's focus on San Francisco's desire to reduce car use inside the city. It's my understanding that most public transportation systems run frequently, even when dramatically under-capacity, in the hopes that availability will encourage adoption. Running empty busses is a burden on taxpayers, but reducing their numbers to the point where they're nominally full would make the system unusably infrequent. You're left with a loss-leader until ridership increases to consume your minimum running capacity, at which point you scale the system to meet demand, both in terms of speed and possible destinations. And this makes you happy because public transit gets better without increasing the tax burden.
That's why this doesn't make any sense to me. Is BART saying they can't scale to meet demand? A combination of high gas prices, road congestion, and concern over global warming and air quality has created the perfect storm of public transportation adoption. If the trains are too full then run more trains. If the ticket machines are overwhelmed then encourage TransLink cards. And if the parking lots are full then charge more for parking, but also run cheaper, more frequent busses to/from BART terminals.
Driving sucks and people are starting to get it. Don't fight it. Embrace it.
BART is becoming so popular during peak commute hours that agency officials are looking at charging patrons more to ride trains, park in its lots and use certain stations when demand is highest.
The idea is to spread use of the system more evenly throughout the day.
Only so many people can fit onto the trains, flow through the stations or find space at station parking lots, said Kenya Wheeler, BART senior planner. And while BART can currently accommodate all the passengers traveling through its system, heavy use during peak hours is pushing the system near its limits.
Timely public transit helps those who can't afford or are otherwise unable to drive, but for the moment let's focus on San Francisco's desire to reduce car use inside the city. It's my understanding that most public transportation systems run frequently, even when dramatically under-capacity, in the hopes that availability will encourage adoption. Running empty busses is a burden on taxpayers, but reducing their numbers to the point where they're nominally full would make the system unusably infrequent. You're left with a loss-leader until ridership increases to consume your minimum running capacity, at which point you scale the system to meet demand, both in terms of speed and possible destinations. And this makes you happy because public transit gets better without increasing the tax burden.
That's why this doesn't make any sense to me. Is BART saying they can't scale to meet demand? A combination of high gas prices, road congestion, and concern over global warming and air quality has created the perfect storm of public transportation adoption. If the trains are too full then run more trains. If the ticket machines are overwhelmed then encourage TransLink cards. And if the parking lots are full then charge more for parking, but also run cheaper, more frequent busses to/from BART terminals.
Driving sucks and people are starting to get it. Don't fight it. Embrace it.
Leave a comment