The Antiplanner

No BART Strike

18th August 2009

No BART Strike

posted in News commentary, Transportation |

The Census Bureau says that about 5.1 percent of commuters in the San Francisco-Oakland urban area take the Bay Area Rapid Transit to work, compared with 10 percent who ride bus or light rail and 72 percent who go by auto. So naturally, the media predicted complete chaos if BART workers went on strike, as they threatened to do yesterday.

As it happens, last-minute negotiations helped to avert the strike, possibly because union leaders realized that public sentiment was against them. Of course, we don’t yet know what final deal was reached; historically, transit agencies cave into the unions, but this time BART is feeling such a pinch that it may not have given up too much.

The union was probably not helped by media reports showing that “the average BART employee makes $120,000 a year” in wages, overtime, and benefits. Thanks to the unions, replacing a seat cushion on a BART railcar requires two employees: one who can only unfasten the old cushion, and a second who can only screw on the new one.

Fortunately, most Americans live in places where transit systems carry less than 5 percent of commuters, and less than 1 percent of all travel, so they don’t have to fear being held up by transit unions who could threaten to cripple their cities by going on strike. Just how real that threat was is debatable in the case of San Francisco, but more credible in the case of New York City.

It is hard to believe that some people think more Americans should become dependent on such an unreliable and easily disrupted form of transportation. The Antiplanner hopes that most Americans are too smart for that to ever happen.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 18th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 13 responses to “No BART Strike”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On August 18th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Mr.O’Toole, these problems that go back a long way.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 2:33 am

  2. 2 On August 18th, 2009, Dan said:

    It is hard to believe that some people think more Americans should become dependent on such an unreliable and easily disrupted form of transportation.

    Indeed! It is my view that one must do damage to fat meat pitches:

    AAA Says Auto Accidents Cost $164.2 Billion a Year

    By JONATHAN WELSH

    Automobile crashes cost the U.S. $164.2 billion annually, or $1,051 per person, according to a report AAA plans to release today.

    The automobile association says that even though drivers tend to focus more on how traffic congestion hurts productivity and makes travelers miserable, the actual cost of crashes totals more than twice the cost of congestion. The human toll is also more daunting: 42,642 people died in automobile crashes in 2006, which equates to about 117 deaths per day and almost five per hour.

    …

    The report finds that in a variety of metropolitan areas ranging from small to very large the cost of crashes exceeds the cost of congestion. The overall cost of crashes is more than double the cost of congestion.

    It isn’t surprising that the total cost of crashes, like the cost of congestion, is highest in larger cities. Indeed, the five metropolitan areas with the highest total cost of crashes are all among the largest areas in the AAA report. The costliest are New York, with a total cost of $18.04 billion; Los Angeles, $10.56 billion; Chicago, $8.38 billion; Miami, $7.80 billion; and Philadelphia, $5.38 billion.

    ———-

    Massive I-5 crash, congestion caused by Federal Way driver

    Jun 09 2009

    A 20-year-old Federal Way man was arrested Tuesday afternoon after losing control of his Honda Civic on southbound Interstate- 5 and plowing into a Ford Expedition.

    The driver of the Honda was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and vehicular assault, according to KIRO.

    …

    The crash blocked two southbound lanes and caused traffic back-ups on southbound and northbound Interstate-5. Southbound drivers were backed up for 11 miles and northbound motorists experienced 10 miles of traffic congestion.

    —————

    Traffic disruption

    The freeway is one of the few direct routes between Sydney and the Central Coast, and is the major road route. It often suffers from traffic disruptions, generally through traffic volume related to on-road accidents, or natural disasters, in particular bushfire.[4]

    Traffic on the freeway is frequently affected by vehicle crashes, often involving trucks.[5][6] These events have encouraged the NRMA to call for more freight to be moved by rail to reduce the number of trucks using the freeway.[7]

    Bushfires have caused closure of the freeway and the nearby railway line and Pacific Highway between the Sydney Basin and the Hawkesbury River on a number of occasions in recent decades. One such event of this type was recorded on 21 and 22 January 2007, when a fire broke out in the adjoining Kuring-gai Chase National Park. The fire forced the closure of the two roads and the railway line between Sydney and the Central Coast, resulting in extended disruption to traffic flow.

    Because of the frequency of these disruptions to traffic flow, arguments for a second major freeway north from the Sydney metropolitan area continue to be pushed forward.[8][9] [footnotes omitted]

    DS

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 8:19 am

  3. 3 On August 18th, 2009, Francis King said:

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “It is hard to believe that some people think more Americans should become dependent on such an unreliable and easily disrupted form of transportation. The Antiplanner hopes that most Americans are too smart for that to ever happen.”

    The smart thing to do would be to cut a no-strike deal with the workers.

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am

  4. 4 On August 18th, 2009, Mike said:

    How can rail only attract 5.1% of commuters in a city as dense and centralized as San Francisco? What else is making it suck so much that a seemingly ideal place for it to flourish is showing such low adoption rates?

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 11:44 am

  5. 5 On August 18th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Francis King said: The smart thing to do would be to cut a no-strike deal with the workers.

    THWM: There are such things with firefighter unions. http://www.iaff.org/

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am

  6. 6 On August 18th, 2009, ws said:

    Mike:How can rail only attract 5.1% of commuters in a city as dense and centralized as San Francisco? What else is making it suck so much that a seemingly ideal place for it to flourish is showing such low adoption rates?

    ws:Because the statistic has nothing to do with only San Francisco – it’s its urban area. Not to mention it’s from 2000.

    http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0667000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3307&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=

    The recent survey shows 32% of the San Franciscans (actual city) take public transportation to work.

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am

  7. 7 On August 18th, 2009, Mike said:

    That’s more like it, ws. Much more in line with what should be happening in a city with that kind of density.

    It sort of begs the question of why private industry hasn’t stepped in to get the profit that could be had. Granted they would have to lay their own tracks, etc — I’m not talking about the tactical implications, but the strategic: is the only reason multiple transit systems aren’t competing for customer dollars because there exists a subsidized government alternative already? Or is there some artifice (a statutory franchise, for example) preventing anyone else from offering service?

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

  8. 8 On August 18th, 2009, bennett said:

    “How can rail only attract 5.1% of commuters in a city as dense and centralized as San Francisco? What else is making it suck so much that a seemingly ideal place for it to flourish is showing such low adoption rates?”

    I was in San Fran this year and took BART lost of places. On the way in from the airport when we went through the tunnels, it was deafening. I’ve never heard anything as loud. It physically hurt my ears. Maybe that’s why more people don’t ride.

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

  9. 9 On August 18th, 2009, The Antiplanner said:

    “Public transit” (the data cited by ws) and BART are two different things, or rather one is a subset of the other. BART primarily brings suburbanites into downtown San Francisco jobs. According to the 2007 ACS, BART takes only 7.2 percent of commuters who live in the city of San Francisco to work.

    But the appropriate geographic unit for a regional transit system like BART is an urban area, not a city.

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  10. 10 On August 18th, 2009, Dan said:

    I agree with Randal, altho in the ~4.447 seconds I took to find the MSA or whatever there was nothing recent. I do know that when I go back – including in a few weeks – I ride BART as it is easy and takes me where I want to go, as numerous commuters with a brain who don’t want to drive with those chimps agree.

    DS

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

  11. 11 On August 18th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    Francis King wrote:
    >> The smart thing to do would be to cut a no-strike
    >> deal with the workers.

    THWM [sic] asserted:
    > There are such things with firefighter unions. http://www.iaff.org/

    There are such things with many government employees, such as “strike and lose your job” (see the firing of the FAA’s air traffic controllers for participating in an illegal strike in 1981) and “strike and go to prison” (as in the U.S. artmed forces).

    posted on August 18th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

  12. 12 On August 22nd, 2009, the highwayman said:

    C. P. Zilliacus said: There are such things with many government employees, such as “strike and lose your job” (see the firing of the FAA’s air traffic controllers for participating in an illegal strike in 1981) and “strike and go to prison” (as in the U.S. armed forces).

    THWM: Then for a rare moment we both agree.

    posted on August 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  13. 13 On August 24th, 2009, ariof said:

    I’ve not commented here before, but this is an unusually preposterous misuse of statistics. The blogger contends that since BART ridership only accounts for 5.1% of commutes in the Bay Area, taking it out of the picture would have a marginal effect on the overall traffic. It begs the question: has Mr. O’Toole ever looked at a map of San Francisco?

    Most of BART’s ridership crosses the San Francisco Bay through the Transbay Tube, from Oakland to San Francisco. From what I can find, 170,000 riders a day take BART across the bay. The parallel Bay Bridge, with five lanes of traffic each way, carries 270,000, and is at or beyond capacity, with almost constant traffic jams at both ends. Since many BART commuters have cars, but take BART because it is a faster and cheaper way to get to the city, they’d have the option of driving. Adding tens of thousands of cars to the at-capacity Bay Bridge (and presumably the Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo Bridges, too) and gridlock will ensue.

    Looking at it by hour, one lane of traffic can handle about 2000 people per hour; with very high bus ridership and carpooling, that might be as high as 3000, or 15,000 per hour. With 22 trains per hour at peak hour, BART can carry at least that many, so at full capacity BART can carry more than the Bay Bridge. (50% is a lot more than 5.1%.) Take BART out of the equation and there is really no question that the cross-bay commute would be a nightmare.

    In other words, please stop using statistics like this that you know are disingenuous. Will a BART strike have major implications on the Dumbarton Bridge and 101 from Redwood City south? No. But it will affect what is already the most congested corridor in the region, and where significantly more than 5% of the riders take transit.

    (Plus, it is going to be closed over Labor Day weekend for seismic retrofitting, and guess where a lot of the excess traffic will wind up? Since alternate routes add 30 to 40 miles, likely on BART. A BART strike would have caused either horrendous traffic or a cancellation of the bridge project, both of which would have had significant costs.)

    posted on August 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.