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.
Its key ingredients are Ras Sindur, Girji, lauh bhasma, ashmaz, lauh bhasma, abhrak bhasma, Sudh Shilajit, Himalcherry and Embelia Ribes. levitra 40 mg But there is nothing simple about the company or its tadalafil 5mg tablets products. Some users normally experience brand cialis for sale common colds, dyspepsia and headaches. Kaunch improves reproductive organs functioning and helps to satisfy Visit This Link cialis price the partner. 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.
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.”
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:
DS
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.
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?
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/
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.
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?
“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.
“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.
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
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).
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.
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.)