$3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the same infrastructure as Europe. That pushes the required value per ride that needs to be generated to unrealistic levels.
$3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the same infrastructure as Europe. That pushes the required value per ride that needs to be generated to unrealistic levels.
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_... says (as of 2017) 70k people go through the transbay tube in each direction during peak commute hours.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.htm... isn't dated but says that 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day.
These numbers aren't directly comparable because they're not measuring the same thing, but taking things as pessimistically as possible, let's say those 270k vehicle crossings all happen during the same time period as the BART numbers. If all those commuters crossed the Bay Bridge by themselves in a vehicle (because the overwhelming majority of car commutes are one person per car), that would be (270k + 70k) / 270k or a 26% increase in vehicles, when it's already ludicrously packed every single day. The bridge would need to have been widened by now (or another bridge built entirely, with feeder freeway interchanges on both sides).
I don't think you realize how completely bonkers the cost of mass-transit development has gotten. New York is up to $1.5-3.5 billion per mile of subway. The new Bay Bridge, massively over-budget at $6.4 billion, represents just a few miles of subway (BART has almost 30 miles).
70k people go through the transbay tube... 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day
In other words, taking your figures painfully literally, if those vehicles carpooled just one additional passenger each on average, you'd have 4 times the added throughput that BART provides.But this will never happen as long as we give HOV lane access to cars other than those carrying 2+ licensed drivers... for political reasons.
The Bart cost was $1.586 billion (according to Wikipedia) or around ~$10 billion of today's dollars.
Let say that back then we had put that money ($1.586 billion) into an annuity in perpetuity and given the money each years to the riders so they will find alternative means of transport.
So if instead of building bart back in the 70's we had put the money into a perpetual annuity, we would be receiving the sum of $63.5 millions a year from the annuity (your own numbers seem to indicate a 4% yield). That is less than 50 cents per ride (according to Wikipedia Bart gives 129 million rides a year).
I don't think the cost is insignificant compared with the level of economic activity that the 400.0000 daily riders generate for SF and the Bay Area in general.
And now imagine 20 years from now how much $63.5 millions a year will buy you compared with the benefits of mass transportation.
I'm genuinely curious. My father is retired and has some savings and that would seem like the ideal investment for him.
The problem that you're ignoring, however, is that the relative cost of building infrastructure today is far higher than it was in the 1970s. If you built BART today, it wouldn't cost $10 billion in today's dollars. NYC's recent projects are running $1.5-3.5 billion per mile of subway track. BART has 28 such miles. That's $42-100 billion, not including the other 70 miles in the system.
So what if BART had cost $8 billion ($50 billion in today's dollars) instead of $1.586 ($10 billion)? Instead of having to great $2.50 of value per ride to justify the investment, you're up to at least $12.50. Or $3,750 per daily BART rider. Is each BART trip generating that much value compared to doing the same trip in a car?
That is less than 50 cents per ride
... if you ignore all the years' operational costs, personnel costs (including benefits and pensions), debt service, etc.... which is the lion's share of the costs. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance.
Or debt service.