‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Transit rewards

258 points · 348 comments · raybb

  1. dcrazy · · focus · HN ↗
    Meanwhile, the 47 Muni bus that connects the Van Ness transit corridor to Caltrain has been “suspended” since 2020, and the extension of Caltrain to the transit center is still unfunded.

    I appreciate solutions that meet us where we are, but it’s depressing that we don’t seem to actually have the will to make a sustainable, integrated mass transit plan.

    1. tristanj · · focus · HN ↗
      The reason there's not more public transit is because the economics are terrible. Looking at the financials:

        Cost per passenger trip:
          BART: $1.07B operating expenses / 59.5M trips = $16.92
          SF Muni: $1.13B / 160M trips = $7.06
          Caltrain: $225M / 9.1M trips = $24.73
      
        Passenger Fare collected per trip:
          BART: $259M / 59.5M trips = $4.35
          SF Muni: $111M / 160M trips = $0.69
          Caltrain: $58.7M / 9.1M trips = $6.45
      
        Subsidy per trip:
          BART: $12.57
          SF Muni: $6.37
          Caltrain: $18.27
      
        Cost per passenger mile:
          BART: $1.07B / 892.5M passenger miles = $1.20/mile
          SF Muni: $1.13B / 312M = $3.62/mile
          Caltrain: $225M / 177.5M = $1.27/mile
      
        Subsidy per passenger mile:
          BART: $1.07B / 892.5M passenger miles = $0.84/mile
          SF Muni: $1.13B / 312M = $3.26/mile
          Caltrain: $225M / 177.5M = $0.94/mile
      
      Every single ride requires a $6 to $18 subsidy, paid for by tax dollars.

      For comparison, federal spending for the interstate highway system is about 2-3 cents per passenger mile.

      1. skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
        Yes, but public transit does create value - the question is who captures it.

        BART likely created huge profits for people who owned land in the areas it services - house prices and rents would have increased substantially. Public investment, private profits. Subsidies in the form of low-cost fares like this are just further welfare for the landowners.

        Interestingly, about a third of BART's cost was acquiring land - if/when that same land is cleared and sold on market, the project would have operated at an enormous profit. Certainly, BART's current assets would far exceed 'total fares collected'.

        1. wallst07 · · focus · HN ↗
          >BART likely created huge profits for people who owned land in the areas it services

          Unless you try to build housing.

          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;02&#x2F;21&#x2F;san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-years-1-mi&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;02&#x2F;21&#x2F;san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-...

          1. zie · · focus · HN ↗
            Looks like the address is 2918 mission, still no apartment complex there according to web maps, though the laundromat building is demolished it seems. So perhaps by 2034, a good 20 years since the start of the project.
          2. skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
            Interesting story but it actually is an example of a landowner&#x27;s massive windfall from the presence of public transport.

            Tillman cites $1M of costs, of which $200k were &#x27;city fees&#x27; (not itemized) and the rest were presumably normal costs for developers&#x2F;engineers&#x2F;architects&#x2F;etc (of course, these would potentially be smaller if there was less regulation). The development start to approval time of 3.5 years is not crazy for a first time &#x27;accidental developer&#x27; working on such a large project.

            After approval, there seems to have been a~12 month period of bad faith activists slowing down the project. Tillman filed a lawsuit, did a media campaign, and the project was re-approved later in 2018.

            He then sold the pre-approved project to a Cresleigh Homes for $13.5 million in early 2019.

            So we&#x27;ve had 6 years of financial delays as Cresleigh tries to fund the build vs maybe 1 year of &#x27;bad faith&#x27; development approval delays 2017-2018.

            And of course - funding the build would have been much easier if the landowner didn&#x27;t want $13.5 million for an empty lot! (or $12 million if you subtract the development costs). So arguably Tillman did more to delay housing than anyone else.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.