Thread

1. dcrazy · 1790136398 · 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 · 1790137381 · 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. tyzoid · 1790137659 · focus · HN ↗

         Are you factoring in fixed costs to that estimate? That may be partially misleading if so.

         1. tristanj · 1790138602 · focus · HN ↗

            Obviously yes, you have to since the vast majority of expenses (>70%) are fixed costs. If you only exclude them and only look at marginal costs, they're profitable.

            But you cannot run a transit system on marginal costs, so using that comparison is also misleading.

            1. jltsiren · 1790141956 · focus · HN ↗

               The usual rule of thumb is that fixed costs of public transit are covered by increased property values. It could mean a private transit company developing the areas around stations (as it often works in Japan), or it could mean the government getting more money from property taxes. Or it could even mean more money from income taxes, if the transit project stimulates economic activity.

               If a transit project doesn't increase property values enough to justify the investment, or if the entity funding the project cannot extract that value, the project rarely makes sense.

               1. trollbridge · 1790166941 · focus · HN ↗

                  Now you’ve created a property tax regime where nobody is going to want to own residential property near a transit station.

                  1. jltsiren · 1790186008 · focus · HN ↗

                     Do you mean that nobody wants property values go up? The government gets more property taxes, because properties near transit stations are more valuable than in other places.

                     1. trollbridge · 1790219663 · focus · HN ↗

                        I certainly don't want my property taxes to go up, and since I'm not planning to sell or take out a big loan, my property value going up does me no good at all.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.