|
Xaris posted:By the way, I just learned this last week but you can deduct commuter costs from your paycheck pre-tax which can save you quite a lot if you are commuting every day This is a program your employer has to set up, you can't just jump in as an individual. Also how long is that BART train? I pay $18 for a round trip ticket on Metrolink or $230 a month for a 30 mile trip.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 15:42
|
|
. I spend about $160+ a month on BART which essentially translates to a savings of $450+ a year (depending on your bracket) if I was deducting it directly from my paycheck. If you bike you're able to deduct $20 a month as well and I know theres a couple options.
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Protons posted:Best state? Isn't it prohibitively difficult to get a concealed carry license in California? VikingofRock posted:I've never understood why the people of Santa Cruz are so against the plans to build a desalinization plant. It's safe and necessary, and yet plans to pursue it were dropped this week because people were so against it. cheese fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Also how long is that BART train? I pay $18 for a round trip ticket on Metrolink or $230 a month for a 30 mile trip. A 30-mile round-trip commute on BART will run you something like $8-10/day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
withak posted:A 30-mile round-trip commute on BART will run you something like $8-10/day. That's 30 miles each way 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
cheese posted:In CA it is done by the county Sherrifs office. The difficulty ranges from "they will ask you if you are a bad dude and if you say no, rubber stamp a yes" to "NO ONE GETS A LICENSE" in some of the bay area and so cal counties. There is actually a website that tracks acceptance rates and in a lot of the far north and central valley counties, its upwards of 90% approval. Let's not forget why California banned open carry in the first place, though. Widespread police brutality targeting the black populace led to armed groups of Panthers following police to any arrest they made and watching with rifles strapped to their backs. For a brief time, police activity became slightly more civil. Then the CA supreme court or the legislature (can't remember which) banned open carry. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:That's 30 miles each way Something like $12-14/day then. edit: Though keep in mind that this trip crosses some pretty serious geographic obstacles and wouldn't even be feasible without some expensive bridges and tunnels. withak fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
I pay $58/RT for Amtrak from Sac to Oak on a lovely shared with Union Pacific track that is bumpy as poo poo and it takes 2 hrs to go 80 miles. Someday this will take 30 min. At the current pace of infrastructure upgrades that should be around the year 2097. The daily pass riders get a decent discount that gets them down to around $30/RT or so, that's not bad. ...as Cheese said, getting a CCW is not that hard if you live in the "Arizona/Nevada/Texas" part of CA aka (at least 20 miles inland). You can also get one if you are friends with the Sheriff in some smaller town or go to Sheriff fundraisers or have other connections. Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Let's not forget why California banned open carry in the first place, though. Widespread police brutality targeting the black populace led to armed groups of Panthers following police to any arrest they made and watching with rifles strapped to their backs. For a brief time, police activity became slightly more civil. Then the CA supreme court or the legislature (can't remember which) banned open carry. It was Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
I may have just posted that link as a comment on the pro-gun rights comments of a variety of facebook friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Protons posted:Best state? Isn't it prohibitively difficult to get a concealed carry license in California? Depends on the county. It's low fruit for DA's and Police Chiefs who want to appear to be tough on guns/crime.. to deny concealed carry to the general public*. *-unless you can prove that you carry more than $25,000 per day. I guess this is aimed at armored truck security guards. *-Or donate to a sheriffs or DA's campaign ( http://www.laweekly.com/2013-02-14/news/sheriff-lee-baca-concealed-weapons-permit/ ) I think the closest big city counties that will allow concealed carry for self defense purposes would be San Mateo for the Bay Area and San Bernardino close to LA. On another note, CA has a bunch of upcoming "ban 'em all bills" that are heading to Browns office [SB 374 in particular] but most of them are going to wind up in court if passed. That being said I'm curious on how much CA takes in on their DROS program, there's a minimum of 4,000-6,000 gun sales/transfers a day in CA times the $30 fee and thats during slow days...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Admittedly, the BART also has one of the highest fare recovery rates in the US (64%), basically comparatively little government goes goes to subsidize fares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
withak posted:Something like $12-14/day then. Oh no, tunnels, how prohibitively expensive and total justification for expensive tickets. I mean tunnels are just unheard of in public transportation, it's like something out of science fiction!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
Well building and maintaining a transit network through the coast range (including crossing a number of active faults) and across the bay in a very seismically-active area is a little harder than running track 30 miles across level ground somewhere else.
withak fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
If you work downtown, unless you have free parking from your employer (and you probably don't), a round trip ticket from anywhere on the BART line is still less than you'd pay for gas plus a bridge toll plus parking. Even if you do have free parking, BART is still cheaper for most commuters. Which is why they use it. BART is packed. If it was "too expensive" nobody would ride it. And while there are good arguments about the gentrifying effect of providing commuter rail, it's worth also noting that the city and county of San Francisco has a minimum wage of $10.55 an hour, making it the highest in the nation. The cost of living here is high, but incomes are higher as well. VideoTapir posted:Oh no, tunnels, how prohibitively expensive and total justification for expensive tickets. I mean tunnels are just unheard of in public transportation, it's like something out of science fiction! BART's Transbay Tube was built starting in 1965 and opened in 1974. It cost $180M in 1970, which, adjusted for inflation, is $1.05B in 2012 dollars. Realistically it would cost two or three times that, given the much higher costs of construction these days. The new eastern span of the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge (which is really only half a bridge, since it connects Oakland to Yerba Buena Island) has a pricetag of $6.4B. You could maybe build a new bridge for as little as half that, if you found the right spot and didn't care about aesthetics (a causeway-type bridge is cheaper than a suspension bridge). But the point is, yes, tunnels and bridges are really loving expensive. BART costs more to run than it takes in in fares. poo poo Ain't Cheap. I happen to be in favor of subsidizing public transport and spending taxpayer money on infrastructure, but it strikes me as pretty ridiculous to be all sarcastic and indignant at the very idea of charging a subsidized, below-cost fare for convenient, rapid commuter rail which runs at or near capacity to move 350,000 people a day (on weekdays). Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Hong Kong and Tokyo laugh at your circumstances and achievements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Hong Kong and Tokyo think public transportation is an uncontroversial public good, like public water and public electricity. Show me a place in the U.S. that thinks the same other than NYC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Bart is loving expensive. LA Metro is cheap as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
The City of San Francisco has a population of about 800,000. It's not fair to compare it to Hong Kong or Tokyo or New York's ability to spend on infrastructure. BART is paid for in part by the counties it runs through, of course. But even so, the entire greater SF metropolitan area, including Oakland and San Jose, is about 7.15 million. The population of New York City (just the city, not the surrounding area) is about 8.34M. Tokyo is 13.23M. Just the city. The Greater LA Area is 12.8M.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Casual Yogurt posted:Bart is loving expensive. LA Metro is cheap as gently caress. Granted, the BART is more comparable to Metrorail (which is expensive as hell) than the LA metro. Part of the reason is probably because of the multi-county nature of BART's governance which usually means each jurisdiction tries to put as little money into the system as possible. Basically, it is a system designed for suburban commuters. The DC metro has a similar issue even if it is cheaper (but fares are rising quickly). LA really needs more heavy rail lines
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
About the size of Hong Kong, and also largely irrelevant. I picked those examples because of similar geological and geographical challenges. Really, though, those ticket prices are ridiculous compared to any other system I've ever ridden, and probably most of the ones I haven't. BUT AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. The Bay Area is not a unique snowflake, don't make excuses for your political failures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
BART is also real dirty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:The Bay Area is not a unique snowflake, don't make excuses for your political failures. I don't know where this hostility is coming from, but no, it's not my "political failure." BART is what it is; an aging 1970s electric commuter rail system that costs a lot to run and maintain. The US government doesn't subsidize transportation enough. Neither does California. And neither does the Bay Area. This is not unique to the Bay Area. And as I said, the system is running at or near capacity. What would happen to the system if you lowered fares significantly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:BART is also real dirty. And what, the Metro isn't? Still, the Metro's cool, I wish I had a walkable station and a more direct route south from the Expo line. I enjoy not driving and reading my Kindle, even if it takes a little longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't know where this hostility is coming from, but no, it's not my "political failure." BART is what it is; an aging 1970s electric commuter rail system that costs a lot to run and maintain. The US government doesn't subsidize transportation enough. Neither does California. And neither does the Bay Area. This is not unique to the Bay Area. Granted, I think the confusion is that the BART is similar to a more standard metro-system when it it is it's own weird hybrid commuter system which usually isn't subsidized by local governments in the same fashion. The expectation is that commuters have money to spend on transportation (the alternative being car use) so the local governments shouldn't subsidize it in the same fashion as more local systems (such as Buses/Muni). MUNI fares are 2.00 which is a more standard transit rate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Americans have been taught to hate public transportation because a car equals success and freedom. Public transit is for poors and dirty European socialists. As such, even in relative liberal havens like the SF bay area (which is still lousy with people from all walks of life who have drunk deeply of the "cars good, trains and buses are for poors" koolaid their whole lives), mass transit faces a huge uphill battle. It also does not help that SF is California, a state whose economy at last count was the 12th largest in the world, has a completely self inflicted and perpetual budget crisis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
In terms of grime, how does the BART compare to the Paris metro? Because the sights and smells there made the LA system seem pristine as a daisy to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:In terms of grime, how does the BART compare to the Paris metro? Because the sights and smells there made the LA system seem pristine as a daisy to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
I've never been on a metro system besides BART where literally every single train car reeks on urine all the time. DC is nice. LA Metro is pretty clean. NYC MTA and CTA are old and grungy but not overwhelmingly gross. All the European systems I've spent significant time on are relatively clean.
Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
There are some pretty bad stations on the MTA, the MTA (more so than the CTA) seems to be starved of enough maintenance funds. The L is generally pretty clean overall, it helps most of the stations are above ground (in a city with a Moscow-like winter). The DC Metro is pretty good overall, although it is still pretty skeletal considering the growing size of the metro region. That said living in DC is another matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't know where this hostility is coming from, but no, it's not my "political failure." BART is what it is; an aging 1970s electric commuter rail system that costs a lot to run and maintain. The US government doesn't subsidize transportation enough. Neither does California. And neither does the Bay Area. This is not unique to the Bay Area. Neither are 1970s electric commuter rail systems that cost a lot to run and maintain. The hostility, such as it is, is toward your excuses for a host of problems that literally every non-US transit system has managed to avoid, and which some US ones have done better on. quote:And as I said, the system is running at or near capacity. What would happen to the system if you lowered fares significantly? Probably not much. Ardennes posted:Granted, I think the confusion is that the BART is similar to a more standard metro-system when it it is it's own weird hybrid commuter system which usually isn't subsidized by local governments in the same fashion. The expectation is that commuters have money to spend on transportation (the alternative being car use) so the local governments shouldn't subsidize it in the same fashion as more local systems (such as Buses/Muni). MUNI fares are 2.00 which is a more standard transit rate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
I mean I like living in the Bay Area and the transit is much more extensive than my years of taking LA public transit but I've had a host of problems with BART, MUNI and AC Transit which really are not present in other systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Thanks for giving me another reason to dislike the US system of allowing every other housing or commercial development to establish its own municipal government and tax base; thus ensuring that EVERY government is small enough to drown in a bathtub. Granted, it is governed at the county level and county levels are fixed but yeah the reason it isn't funded in the same way is because of it was designed to be pretty expensive and for suburban commuters. That said, the BART is far from the most glaring problem with the American transportation system, there are plenty of cities with almost no rail transit at all or minimal light rail systems. Seattle is a great example which only has a single commuter line and a light rail line and is plagued by LA-like traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
BART has the severe problem that the original designers thought cloth seats were swanky. Cloth seats absorb odors and germs and filth. The new BART cars won't have permeable seats. Agreed with the earlier poster: the American belief is that public transit is for poors. I've seen that explicitly stated by councilmen in Charlotte, North Carolina: public transit is for poor people, and we don't want to make it easy for criminals to travel to the wealthier parts of town.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Neither are 1970s electric commuter rail systems that cost a lot to run and maintain. I am giving you reasons for why the system is as it is. You may disagree with some of the reasons, but that doesn't make them "excuses". BART is tremendously successful at accomplishing what it was designed to do. quote:Probably not much. quote:Thanks for giving me another reason to dislike the US system of allowing every other housing or commercial development to establish its own municipal government and tax base; thus ensuring that EVERY government is small enough to drown in a bathtub. BART is mostly managed at the county level, and Bay Area counties are not particularly small, in terms of population. And if your intent is to criticize US public transport, the Bay Area is a poor choice for your poster-child. The stupid thing here is that I probably agree with you in a lot of areas: I think our transportation systems could be a lot better, and I think that the country has had a lovely attitude towards public transit for the last century. It's just bizarre to me to pick out BART for special criticism. Compared to most comparably-sized metropolitan areas in the US, the SF Bay Area has far better public transport. (There are a handful that are unarguably better, and scores that are unarguably worse.) BART cars may be old and due for replacement, and they are dirty (but not as dirty as the Paris underground), but they work, and 350,000 people rely on BART daily to get to and from work. It is an economically viable choice for those people. They spend on BART to save on housing costs. It runs on totally dedicated rail, most of which is elevated or underground. It's an all-electric system, which is far better for the environment than the typical diesel-run commuter rail systems in the US. It connects to two of the three major airports (although the OAK connection requires a shuttle, which is stupid). It's OK. BART isn't amazing but it's not the giant fuckup you're trying to make it out to be, and for people who live around here, $10 or whatever is not an unreasonable fare. Direct your hostility where it is better deserved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Also, ironically enough it penalizes suburban life since the fares correspond to distance traveled. But yeah BART and MUNI are far from the worst systems out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 08:48
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, ironically enough it penalizes suburban life since the fares correspond to distance traveled. This isn't really a BART thing, more of a transportation thing. BART's loud as poo poo in the transbay tube. Louder than the loving Eurostar in the chunnel.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Agreed with the earlier poster: the American belief is that public transit is for poors. I've seen that explicitly stated by councilmen in Charlotte, North Carolina: public transit is for poor people, and we don't want to make it easy for criminals to travel to the wealthier parts of town. There's also the whining about mass transit stealing resources away from poor helpless car drivers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
When people in the bay area talk about their commute they always mention the bus or BART in an apologetic tone. Listen for it next time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:BART's loud as poo poo in the transbay tube. Louder than the loving Eurostar in the chunnel. Also in most of the other tunnels (eg on much of the trip from downtown SF to the airport.) Despite the frequently screechy rails, I never needed earplugs to ride the NYC transit systems (subway or regional rail.) I do on BART! That gripe aside I actually like BART a lot, especially now that they've started phasing in the less grody seat covers v  v
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Agreed with the earlier poster: the American belief is that public transit is for poors. I've seen that explicitly stated by councilmen in Charlotte, North Carolina: public transit is for poor people, and we don't want to make it easy for criminals to travel to the wealthier parts of town. This is precisely why BART doesn't run to the north bay peninsula. (Marin, etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 18:32
|
|
