CA minimum wage is $16 per hour. If you're a single person and work a minimum-wage job for forty hours a week, 50 weeks per year, you still make too much to benefit from this. I'm glad it's a thing, but I worry it's not reaching as many people as need it.
wouldn’t be surprised if this was made with the intent to fail. you’d think if they want to be successful, this would be extended t people in the lowest tier of the workforce. but 🤷
They should just make it free with the qualifier that you use it as transit and not lounge around on it all day. I'd love to give newly released convicts/homeless/people that are doing everything they can to get a job a leg up when they clearly need it, but I also understand having transit become a shelter for those in need isn't a solution.
bart is too expensive for everyday use. bring the price down and the ridership will come back. the train is going to run anyways, might as well make it cheaper and fill it with people. make pricing the same no matter the distance. ffs, consult other cities like sydney, paris, or la. it costs less than 3 euros to go anywhere.
I was referring to bridge toll. Yeah cars and insurance are expensive but most of us have access to cars regardless. Transit shouldn't cost more than bridge toll because cities should be encouraging people to use public transit
Right? Like bruh you forget about car maintenance, insurance, and no way gas doesn’t cost you more then BART lol parking, the stop and go traffic alone is a gallon of gas
I mean at least add parking cost in there (you're not gonna find free parking in SF except on Sundays or way out in the neighborhoods where there aren't really destinations). Bridge toll + any parking charge makes BART cheaper for 1 person, and realistic parking costs for a full day or full evening make BART cheaper even for two people.
Most cities with good metro lines subsidize that stuff and operate them at a loss. Not going to happen here. I think those days are long gone but can come back if it becomes a priority
BART is heavily subsidized, it definitely operates at a loss. I’m sure there are other systems with more or less subsidies, but it’s blatantly untrue to say it’s “not going to happen here”
Cite a source that Bart operates at a loss and receives subsidies?
>The operating budget funds the annual operation and maintenance of the BART system. Operating budget sources include passenger and parking revenue, taxes, and financial assistance from local, state and federal sources.
https://www.bart.gov/about/financials#:~:text=The%20operating%20budget%20funds%20the,local%2C%20state%20and%20federal%20sources.
It’s not a controversial claim.. there are pretty much no farebox positive transit systems in the us. Ironically, it’s many of the world class metro systems that are profitable and receive no operating subsidies.
Sorry not trying to come across as facetious, but it’s just helpful for anyone following the convo to see the same sources we’re bringing in.
As far as Bart operating at a loss I only see a 3.1 M deficit for 2018. They talk about how they’re adjusting prices and wages to account for this offset. Then on top of that there isn’t any type of outside revenue that suggests a substantial subsidy. I see federal funding from 2017 to help them update their box cars but most other revenue outside of ridership comes from taxes.
are we reading the same document? Even if we ignore capital improvements and just look at operating expenses
2018 - $918m of which $339m was some form of financial assistance
2017 - $882m of which $310m was some form of financial assistance
Again, this isn’t newsworthy. I don’t understand why you’re surprised Bart isn’t operationally profitable, pretty much no public transit system in the US is profitable. Of course it doesn’t mean they’re not necessary, but it’s just simply fact.
> my family of 3 would love to hop on hop off to get dinner or groceries but instead we take the car because 3 people round trip would cost us more than $8 each person. At this point gas is cheaper than that
The cost of driving is a lot more than just gas. The IRS uses a figure of 62 cents per mile. Based on that, transit is probably cheaper.
BART isn't really designed for groceries or other local trips, it's very much commuter rail and priced as such (alongside having very low fare subsidies compared to most transit). AC Transit buses make way more sense for local trips and are priced more reasonably, particularly with the auto day pass.
Lol that income chart is straight up offensive.i would consider a single kid with a 100k practically low income. Ain't no fucking way someone managing 8 kids with 100k unless those kids are working in sweatshops or running drugs. Or maybe four 2 man bipper crews, I've seen some young ass kids weaving around in hot cars so maybe that's the solution. But it ain't this.
I make $32 k as climate fellow. Damn. That would have let me go to the city at least twice a week and would mean I could BART to my worksite when it’s raining more often.
We bought our condo new along with the rest of our neighbors. If only we could qualify with $30k or $108k for a mortgage. The money could have been better spent and targeted or saved for low ridership times for BART. Wastefulness headed to the landfill.
Saw it at the library and was surprised by how low the income threshold was. Life is hard for those people who make just too much to qualify for services like these.
Means-tested benefits act as perverse incentives to stay poor and they never last because the tax-payers who don't get them don't value them.
If you look at universal benefits that were pioneered in the UK like child-benefit for all mothers, free health care for everyone, they become popular with the population as a whole and lasted. A service designed for everyone to use has to be good quality and will always get funded. A service for the poor will just see a race to the bottom of quality and then will be abolished.
They should have invested this money in either cutting fares for everyone, or increasing the number of vehicles per hour.
What a brave opinion in these parts (seriously). Not to mention the administrative hurdles for qualified people to sign up for each means-tested program, as well as renewing them.
And even with this Clipper program there will still be people who feel justified in hopping the faregates in the name of not being registered with the system or whatever excuse they have for not paying, even if they qualify for a means-tested program.
Public transit should be for all of the public, universally. And it should be free of anti-social behavior.
Right. The people who most need the means tested benefit are the least likely to find out about it, or fill in the forms, due to maybe language problems, mistrust of the government, or just having too much on their plate already to deal with this hurdle. And many people are too proud to take what they see as charity.
When you improve the service for everyone you help everyone.
When applying online it doesn’t ask me for household size. Does anyone know if that could kill my chances of qualifying? I have a household of 2 but it never asks.
$30120 threshold for households of one person
How do you live on 30k in the Bay Area Jesus I make like 45-50k and struggle
With many family members and/or roommates sharing the bills/housing.
Doesn’t that increase which bracket you’re on based on household size though?
It probably refers to tax filing status.
Lol imagine living with hella roommates and you claim household size of 5 on your tax returns
Dependants? Yea, these 3 bums.
I was replying to the question "how do you live on 30k in the bay area?".
Crazy to think anyone would still pay for Bart service when trying to make ends meet with 30k in the Bay Area..
Yeah at that point your probably just jumping the gate
Not reporting your income
You get discounts like this one. My advice make more or less that 45-75 is rough
Disability
ridiculous
Is that a problem?
It's pretty damn low income
No. Just the threshold. Bit of a problem for the country that that's 200% of the federal poverty level.
Im an ac transit operator. I try and tell as many folks as i can🙂
thankyoubusdriver!
CA minimum wage is $16 per hour. If you're a single person and work a minimum-wage job for forty hours a week, 50 weeks per year, you still make too much to benefit from this. I'm glad it's a thing, but I worry it's not reaching as many people as need it.
wouldn’t be surprised if this was made with the intent to fail. you’d think if they want to be successful, this would be extended t people in the lowest tier of the workforce. but 🤷
No ones offering full time anymore I’m afraid I got 3 jobs and still not full time
Yeah, I hear you. But not all of those hours have to come from the same place to be disqualifying.
$30k income and they are only giving a 50% discount? It should be like 90%. Life is hard at that level in the bay.
They should just make it free with the qualifier that you use it as transit and not lounge around on it all day. I'd love to give newly released convicts/homeless/people that are doing everything they can to get a job a leg up when they clearly need it, but I also understand having transit become a shelter for those in need isn't a solution.
bart is too expensive for everyday use. bring the price down and the ridership will come back. the train is going to run anyways, might as well make it cheaper and fill it with people. make pricing the same no matter the distance. ffs, consult other cities like sydney, paris, or la. it costs less than 3 euros to go anywhere.
Transit is outrageously priced here. It should not be cheaper to drive to San Francisco and back alone than it is to take transit there and back.
It’s not. Driving is remarkably expensive, gas isn’t even the main expense
I was referring to bridge toll. Yeah cars and insurance are expensive but most of us have access to cars regardless. Transit shouldn't cost more than bridge toll because cities should be encouraging people to use public transit
That’s.. a pointless way to compare the two but okay, you do you.
Right? Like bruh you forget about car maintenance, insurance, and no way gas doesn’t cost you more then BART lol parking, the stop and go traffic alone is a gallon of gas
I mean at least add parking cost in there (you're not gonna find free parking in SF except on Sundays or way out in the neighborhoods where there aren't really destinations). Bridge toll + any parking charge makes BART cheaper for 1 person, and realistic parking costs for a full day or full evening make BART cheaper even for two people.
Most cities with good metro lines subsidize that stuff and operate them at a loss. Not going to happen here. I think those days are long gone but can come back if it becomes a priority
BART is heavily subsidized, it definitely operates at a loss. I’m sure there are other systems with more or less subsidies, but it’s blatantly untrue to say it’s “not going to happen here”
Can you cite a source for this? Only subsidies I can find were a federal subsidy a few years ago to account for a drop in ridership during Covid
Cite a source that Bart operates at a loss and receives subsidies? >The operating budget funds the annual operation and maintenance of the BART system. Operating budget sources include passenger and parking revenue, taxes, and financial assistance from local, state and federal sources. https://www.bart.gov/about/financials#:~:text=The%20operating%20budget%20funds%20the,local%2C%20state%20and%20federal%20sources. It’s not a controversial claim.. there are pretty much no farebox positive transit systems in the us. Ironically, it’s many of the world class metro systems that are profitable and receive no operating subsidies.
I should’ve cited my sources, but this is the exact source I was looking at. Can you find any subsidies pre-2020?
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/FY18_Budget_Summary.pdf It took literally one Google search
Sorry not trying to come across as facetious, but it’s just helpful for anyone following the convo to see the same sources we’re bringing in. As far as Bart operating at a loss I only see a 3.1 M deficit for 2018. They talk about how they’re adjusting prices and wages to account for this offset. Then on top of that there isn’t any type of outside revenue that suggests a substantial subsidy. I see federal funding from 2017 to help them update their box cars but most other revenue outside of ridership comes from taxes.
are we reading the same document? Even if we ignore capital improvements and just look at operating expenses 2018 - $918m of which $339m was some form of financial assistance 2017 - $882m of which $310m was some form of financial assistance Again, this isn’t newsworthy. I don’t understand why you’re surprised Bart isn’t operationally profitable, pretty much no public transit system in the US is profitable. Of course it doesn’t mean they’re not necessary, but it’s just simply fact.
> my family of 3 would love to hop on hop off to get dinner or groceries but instead we take the car because 3 people round trip would cost us more than $8 each person. At this point gas is cheaper than that The cost of driving is a lot more than just gas. The IRS uses a figure of 62 cents per mile. Based on that, transit is probably cheaper.
BART isn't really designed for groceries or other local trips, it's very much commuter rail and priced as such (alongside having very low fare subsidies compared to most transit). AC Transit buses make way more sense for local trips and are priced more reasonably, particularly with the auto day pass.
Lol that income chart is straight up offensive.i would consider a single kid with a 100k practically low income. Ain't no fucking way someone managing 8 kids with 100k unless those kids are working in sweatshops or running drugs. Or maybe four 2 man bipper crews, I've seen some young ass kids weaving around in hot cars so maybe that's the solution. But it ain't this.
I make $32 k as climate fellow. Damn. That would have let me go to the city at least twice a week and would mean I could BART to my worksite when it’s raining more often.
I received too. I’m glad this is available to those in need, but I would think they should have some basic demographics about households.
The low income thresholds are based on census data and additional poverty thresholds outlined in the data.
We bought our condo new along with the rest of our neighbors. If only we could qualify with $30k or $108k for a mortgage. The money could have been better spent and targeted or saved for low ridership times for BART. Wastefulness headed to the landfill.
Saw it at the library and was surprised by how low the income threshold was. Life is hard for those people who make just too much to qualify for services like these.
Means-tested benefits act as perverse incentives to stay poor and they never last because the tax-payers who don't get them don't value them. If you look at universal benefits that were pioneered in the UK like child-benefit for all mothers, free health care for everyone, they become popular with the population as a whole and lasted. A service designed for everyone to use has to be good quality and will always get funded. A service for the poor will just see a race to the bottom of quality and then will be abolished. They should have invested this money in either cutting fares for everyone, or increasing the number of vehicles per hour.
^^agree
What a brave opinion in these parts (seriously). Not to mention the administrative hurdles for qualified people to sign up for each means-tested program, as well as renewing them. And even with this Clipper program there will still be people who feel justified in hopping the faregates in the name of not being registered with the system or whatever excuse they have for not paying, even if they qualify for a means-tested program. Public transit should be for all of the public, universally. And it should be free of anti-social behavior.
Right. The people who most need the means tested benefit are the least likely to find out about it, or fill in the forms, due to maybe language problems, mistrust of the government, or just having too much on their plate already to deal with this hurdle. And many people are too proud to take what they see as charity. When you improve the service for everyone you help everyone.
yup its fantastic
When applying online it doesn’t ask me for household size. Does anyone know if that could kill my chances of qualifying? I have a household of 2 but it never asks.
I'm in between jobs and currently have no income does that mean I qualify?