BART’s excursion fare: Agency earns millions from passengers not riding trains(sf.streetsblog.org)
sf.streetsblog.org
BART’s excursion fare: Agency earns millions from passengers not riding trains
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2017/12/14/barts-excursion-fare-how-the-agency-earns-millions-from-passengers-not-riding-trains/
99 comments
Usually works but sometimes there's no one at the kiosk.
> I suspect the excursion fare today is trying to disincentivize the use of the trains and stations as shelters by the unhoused.
Time limits around entry exit could be useful here, where you can exit within 10 minutes of entry there is no charge. Reason for exiting at the same station for me is the train is delayed by 30 minutes and I forgot to check the next train before entering the station.
More stories on excursion fare: https://twitter.com/graue/status/1554998671384756229
> I suspect the excursion fare today is trying to disincentivize the use of the trains and stations as shelters by the unhoused.
Time limits around entry exit could be useful here, where you can exit within 10 minutes of entry there is no charge. Reason for exiting at the same station for me is the train is delayed by 30 minutes and I forgot to check the next train before entering the station.
More stories on excursion fare: https://twitter.com/graue/status/1554998671384756229
Neat link. From BART’s tweet response:
> You can request an excursion fare refund with Clipper.
This is true and wasn’t mentioned in the article, but should have been.
> You can request an excursion fare refund with Clipper.
This is true and wasn’t mentioned in the article, but should have been.
exactly - it seems braindead obvious to me that there should be a 5-minute window for exiting without charge. Not implementing such an obvious and trivial feature can only be interpreted as deliberately taking money without delivering value for riders because....it's possible?
Until recently, BART used magstripe tickets where all information was stored on the ticket itself. It might not have been possible to implement a time window with that.
That doesn't explain why they didn't add this when migrating to the Clipper card, but I feel like "nobody thought to change it" or "we wanted to reduce risk by not introducing changes while migrating" seem like more likely explanations than malice.
That doesn't explain why they didn't add this when migrating to the Clipper card, but I feel like "nobody thought to change it" or "we wanted to reduce risk by not introducing changes while migrating" seem like more likely explanations than malice.
I wouldn't call it malice. It's simply a rational decision. BART makes more money with the fee than without, so absent political pressure to discontinue it why would they?
Also, Clipper cards have been around many years. They aren't a recent addition to BART.
Also, Clipper cards have been around many years. They aren't a recent addition to BART.
"I wouldn't call it _malice_. I make more money robbing travellers on the King's road than not doing so, and it's very unlikely I'll get caught!"
Assuming a value system in which certain acts are wrong even if not observed / punished, some acts can be rational _and_ malicious.
(This isn't intended to say anything either way about BART's actions here, which are obviously not the same as literal robbery; I'm mainly disputing the idea that rational acts can't be malicious.)
Assuming a value system in which certain acts are wrong even if not observed / punished, some acts can be rational _and_ malicious.
(This isn't intended to say anything either way about BART's actions here, which are obviously not the same as literal robbery; I'm mainly disputing the idea that rational acts can't be malicious.)
I’d take it further and say this isn’t intentional at all.
Having worked in, for, and around governments, this was almost certainly an oversight that hasn’t been a big enough of a fire in comparison to the other fires.
Making a public stink about it makes it a bigger fire though, so the system is working as intended!
Having worked in, for, and around governments, this was almost certainly an oversight that hasn’t been a big enough of a fire in comparison to the other fires.
Making a public stink about it makes it a bigger fire though, so the system is working as intended!
>I wouldn't call it malice. It's simply a rational decision. BART makes more money with the fee than without
by taking money from those weaker than it, since it is a large well financed organization and the people riding it will not be equipped to fight it (legally), that's malicious.
by taking money from those weaker than it, since it is a large well financed organization and the people riding it will not be equipped to fight it (legally), that's malicious.
[deleted]
While Clipper cards have been around for a while, it was a very long migration process. BART didn't stop selling the magstripe tickets in vending machines until 2020, and continued to use them for discounted fares through the end of 2021 [1].
[1] https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2021/news20210908
[1] https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2021/news20210908
[deleted]
A decision that increases revenue X dollars is not rational if it also increases costs 10X to deal with customer complaints and bad publicity.
Also, it's possible (if unusual) to get value out of traveling within the BART system.
For example, suppose you have a nice camera you want to sell to a friend. They live in Millbrae and commute to SF by BART. You live in north San Jose.
So you agree to meet them on their way home from work, at 6pm right outside the Powell Street station. That's $16.80 for your Berryessa to Powell Street round trip.
But what if you met inside the station instead? For your purposes, that's fine too. You can hand them the camera in either place. Should that trip be free because you enter and leave the BART system at Berryessa? I would say no, because getting to SF was valuable to you, plus you used a seat on two BART trains.
For example, suppose you have a nice camera you want to sell to a friend. They live in Millbrae and commute to SF by BART. You live in north San Jose.
So you agree to meet them on their way home from work, at 6pm right outside the Powell Street station. That's $16.80 for your Berryessa to Powell Street round trip.
But what if you met inside the station instead? For your purposes, that's fine too. You can hand them the camera in either place. Should that trip be free because you enter and leave the BART system at Berryessa? I would say no, because getting to SF was valuable to you, plus you used a seat on two BART trains.
Of course, you're right: it is absolutely feasible that such a valuable trip is possible and happens. You're right that a truly valuable trip is rightfully charged a fare. And finally you're also right that such trips are probably unusual. I would go so far as to say rare.
What's much more common than that rare scenario is that, after paying a fare, you get down to the platform only to find that there's a long delay in the system, there are too many people trying to get on the trains, or something similar that causes you to leave the station to find saner transport. I've been bitten by this on BART, more than once. At stations in the heart of the city you "start the trip" triggering the fare long before you can see any of the platforms to know whether or not you should enter.
Back to the point. The problem isn't that you're wrong in asserting a valuable excursion trip is possible, but that you use that fact to rationalize the charging of a fare while ignoring the much more common cases where you'd charge a fare while delivering no value for money. Once you consider the complete picture it becomes clear that the right thing to do is build policy around the common case, not the rare/hypothetical one. It would be better to eat the cost of the rare valuable trip BART should charge for so that they don't charge people for trips they couldn't actually deliver.
What's much more common than that rare scenario is that, after paying a fare, you get down to the platform only to find that there's a long delay in the system, there are too many people trying to get on the trains, or something similar that causes you to leave the station to find saner transport. I've been bitten by this on BART, more than once. At stations in the heart of the city you "start the trip" triggering the fare long before you can see any of the platforms to know whether or not you should enter.
Back to the point. The problem isn't that you're wrong in asserting a valuable excursion trip is possible, but that you use that fact to rationalize the charging of a fare while ignoring the much more common cases where you'd charge a fare while delivering no value for money. Once you consider the complete picture it becomes clear that the right thing to do is build policy around the common case, not the rare/hypothetical one. It would be better to eat the cost of the rare valuable trip BART should charge for so that they don't charge people for trips they couldn't actually deliver.
It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to defend an unfair status quo.
The point of my comment wasn't to take a position on whether the excursion fare is good or bad. That's a trade-off with pros and cons. Your position is that the cons greatly outweigh the pros, and you make a very reasonable argument for that.
However, what the original article said is different. It said the excursion fare "exists solely to make money" and "it is a scam" (emphasis mine). As if there is no conceivable rationale at all for the existence of excursion fares and the only possible way to see it is that BART is simply greedy.
BART may be greedy, or maybe they're just not seeing the balance of pros and cons. I don't know. I thought the article went overboard in being so confident that BART's motives are definitely nefarious.
TLDR: It's not that I'm favor of the excursion fare; it's that I'm against articles with hyperbolic melodrama.
However, what the original article said is different. It said the excursion fare "exists solely to make money" and "it is a scam" (emphasis mine). As if there is no conceivable rationale at all for the existence of excursion fares and the only possible way to see it is that BART is simply greedy.
BART may be greedy, or maybe they're just not seeing the balance of pros and cons. I don't know. I thought the article went overboard in being so confident that BART's motives are definitely nefarious.
TLDR: It's not that I'm favor of the excursion fare; it's that I'm against articles with hyperbolic melodrama.
[deleted]
They could just let you exit normally and not pay any fare if you entered the station less than 8 minutes ago, or whatever would be an amount of time that you couldn't realistically ride somewhere, enjoy another station, and then ride back.
Though I guess people would just tap in, tap out immediately but don't exit the turnstiles, then just get on a train and exit through the emergency exit at whatever station you want for free.
Though I guess people would just tap in, tap out immediately but don't exit the turnstiles, then just get on a train and exit through the emergency exit at whatever station you want for free.
"Though I guess people would just tap in, tap out immediately but don't exit the turnstiles, then just get on a train and exit through the emergency exit at whatever station you want for free."
Sure, or just jump the turnstiles and exist through the emergency exit on the other end, which I already see people do frequently.
Sure, or just jump the turnstiles and exist through the emergency exit on the other end, which I already see people do frequently.
Sure, but jumping the turnstiles is clearly ipso facto breaking the rules. Re-tapping where you entered but not exiting immediately could be explained away. I bet far more people would cheat if they only had to tap to exit and not exit, versus jumping turnstiles.
They could check that you leave the station within 5 min
> You can go to the kiosk at any BART station and the station attendant will put a sticker on your card to indicate that you are leaving via the same station you entered and allow you to exit via the emergency doors, therefore not incurring the excursion fare.
What if you use the phone app and don't have a physical card with you?
What if you use the phone app and don't have a physical card with you?
The sticker is just a plain sticker. I would assume they'd let you put it on an alternate surface..
The sticker doesn’t matter.
The phone maintains an open “transaction until you swipe it at your destination. It’s not clear what happens if you leave the the station without swiping, and return a few hours/days later. I suspect they still charge you for the excursion fare, or a higher amount.
TTC stations in Toronto will not allow you to enter using Presto at the same station you have already entered. I assume this is to prevent "pass backs" but it also affects those that have entered on the wrong side of certain stations.
The solution in absence of an attendant. Jump the barriers.
The solution in absence of an attendant. Jump the barriers.
What's a "pass back"? I'm guessing some form of fare dodging, but could you explain the mechanics?
I imagine it refers to entering the station using a ticket, then passing that ticket to someone leaving the station. (And, presumably, relying on someone else doing the same thing at the other end?)
Correct except fares are not routinely checked on the TTC so once you've entered you shouldn't experience any issues.
Assuming anyone is there, sure. I've changed my mind about BART late at night (next train was delay 30m, going to take an Uber instead) and had no one there to talk to.
The system will have a record of you entering at one station, but no record of an exit.
Will that result in a charge or other problem?
(On the London Underground, it would result in a charge, as the system is designed to assume you exited somewhere but somehow managed to leave without tapping out.)
Will that result in a charge or other problem?
(On the London Underground, it would result in a charge, as the system is designed to assume you exited somewhere but somehow managed to leave without tapping out.)
No - any time you have a problem you talk with a BART agent at the gate and they sort it out for you.
Are they not present sometimes? Yes. Are they slow / overrun by people? Sometimes. But that has little to do with the fare.
Are they not present sometimes? Yes. Are they slow / overrun by people? Sometimes. But that has little to do with the fare.
You’re correct. When you try to enter next the turnstile will error out with “see agent”. That’s when they fix your card and peel the sticker off. Which highlights the total ridiculousness: they’re asking riders to see an agent twice!
> they’re asking riders to see an agent twice
Even worse: they're asking NON-riders to see an agent twice
Even worse: they're asking NON-riders to see an agent twice
Ergo, affected passengers need to see infinite number of agents for each trip taken.
> Even worse: they're asking NON-riders to see an agent twice
Presumably on the second entry you will be riding the train.
Presumably on the second entry you will be riding the train.
Maybe, but the number of times you need to see an agent is still 2x the number of failed ride attempts.
Looks like this comment from another chain is your answer
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32442280
One thing that surprised early Oyster users on LU was that the new system knew about routes. If you live in Zone 3 and you travel to a Zone 3 station on the far side of London, you could buy a weekly paper ticket that's not valid in Zone 1, and it'd let you in (in Zone 3 it's valid) and out (in Zone 3 again, it's valid) despite your train passing straight through Zone 1. However after switching to Oyster weekly the computer would look at these journeys and go, er - no, the sane routes use Zone 1 so a ticket needs Zone 1 validity...
On day one there was no noticeable symptom. But if your Oyster only had a season ticket for outer Zones and your route was via Zone 1 the system had surcharged you, and when you tried to travel the next day the Oyster has negative balance, you can't use it until you pay off the excess. This infuriated some travellers, when in reality they had actually been cheating (presumably in most cases without realising) previously.
Today Oyster can actually track if you insist on taking the long route, you tap pink validators at key interchanges you'd need to pass through to do your slower and less central route avoiding Zone 1, and the system will go OK, fair enough, you really did go the long way so keep your money. I expect very few people do this.
On day one there was no noticeable symptom. But if your Oyster only had a season ticket for outer Zones and your route was via Zone 1 the system had surcharged you, and when you tried to travel the next day the Oyster has negative balance, you can't use it until you pay off the excess. This infuriated some travellers, when in reality they had actually been cheating (presumably in most cases without realising) previously.
Today Oyster can actually track if you insist on taking the long route, you tap pink validators at key interchanges you'd need to pass through to do your slower and less central route avoiding Zone 1, and the system will go OK, fair enough, you really did go the long way so keep your money. I expect very few people do this.
You know what? You've made a good argument to scrap the fair machines and make public transit free.
> presumably in most cases without realising
I doubt this. Even as a child I knew that a travelcard must be valid for all the zones you travel through. Of course, if challenged, someone knowingly cheating would claim they didn't realise.
> you tap pink validators at key interchanges > you'd need to pass through to do your slower > and less central route avoiding Zone 1"
Wow! I had no idea this was a thing. I moved away from London in 2010, and now I'm curious to know whether this was implemented before or after I left.
I doubt this. Even as a child I knew that a travelcard must be valid for all the zones you travel through. Of course, if challenged, someone knowingly cheating would claim they didn't realise.
> you tap pink validators at key interchanges > you'd need to pass through to do your slower > and less central route avoiding Zone 1"
Wow! I had no idea this was a thing. I moved away from London in 2010, and now I'm curious to know whether this was implemented before or after I left.
It was introduced on 6 September 2009: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2009/septem...
I used this frequently at some point, but it is now so long ago I can't remember where. Especially with many London Overground routes, it's not necessarily slower.
I used this frequently at some point, but it is now so long ago I can't remember where. Especially with many London Overground routes, it's not necessarily slower.
In this particular context by the way (enter and exit same station, assume you just tapped in and out as you would normally) LU may actually charge "Same station fare" and the rules are pretty esoteric.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/how-to-pay-and-where-to-buy-tickets...
[Edited to add: Stupid web site doesn't have working fragment markers, click "Same Station Exits" near the top... ]
In practice, as it explains elsewhere on the site, these charges are mostly to discourage attempted fare evasion, and if you're a regular user who just does this once in a while it'll delete the journeys after it decides this isn't suspicious after all, otherwise you need to talk to a human if you really didn't travel anywhere.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/how-to-pay-and-where-to-buy-tickets...
[Edited to add: Stupid web site doesn't have working fragment markers, click "Same Station Exits" near the top... ]
In practice, as it explains elsewhere on the site, these charges are mostly to discourage attempted fare evasion, and if you're a regular user who just does this once in a while it'll delete the journeys after it decides this isn't suspicious after all, otherwise you need to talk to a human if you really didn't travel anywhere.
The 'same station exits' section of that page is fascinating. The great thing is that most people will never need to worry about this, so they discourage fare evasion without inconveniencing honest passengers.
I wonder: if there were better enforcement of fares in San Francisco, would public transport be better? Right now, I almost never use public transport in SF because ~100% of my journeys would take 2x to 3x as long as they do by car. This is very sad for me, having previously lived in two cities with excellent public transport (London and Beijing).
I wonder: if there were better enforcement of fares in San Francisco, would public transport be better? Right now, I almost never use public transport in SF because ~100% of my journeys would take 2x to 3x as long as they do by car. This is very sad for me, having previously lived in two cities with excellent public transport (London and Beijing).
When you leave without going through the turnstile your card is locked and you can't re-enter via the turnstiles. That's what the sticker is for: it tells the station agent that you should be able to re-enter via the emergency exit.
> allow you to exit via the emergency doors
If you had to be allowed to exit via emergency doors then they wouldn't be very good emergency doors. They're not going to chase after you :)
"Jump the turnstile, never pay the toll / Doo-wah diddy and bust in with the pre-roll"
If you had to be allowed to exit via emergency doors then they wouldn't be very good emergency doors. They're not going to chase after you :)
"Jump the turnstile, never pay the toll / Doo-wah diddy and bust in with the pre-roll"
You can still physically do it even if you’re not allowed to, yes.
(There’s at least one other situation where you might be authorized to use the emergency gates sans emergency: a few of the stations have the elevators to the platform outside the paid area for some bizarre reason, so when transiting the station by elevator you have to go through the fare gates and then immediately leave via the emergency exit to get to the train!)
(There’s at least one other situation where you might be authorized to use the emergency gates sans emergency: a few of the stations have the elevators to the platform outside the paid area for some bizarre reason, so when transiting the station by elevator you have to go through the fare gates and then immediately leave via the emergency exit to get to the train!)
A related really dumb thing is that in general, the signs in BART which indicate the time until the next train on a given line are not visible from outside the fare zone. This is especially relevant in parts of downtown SF, where you could take BART or Muni to go up or down market, and if there's a delay on one, you might quite reasonably want to switch to another. The added time to find the station agent and get an excursion fee waved is more than long enough to miss a muni train. (And needing to see an agent when _re-entering_ the system next time can make you miss a train again.)
I especially think that, if there's a service disruption, track maintenance, cancelled train, etc, BART should _automatically_ know not to apply an excursion fee, rather than hoping that most riders won't ask for a station agent to waive it.
I especially think that, if there's a service disruption, track maintenance, cancelled train, etc, BART should _automatically_ know not to apply an excursion fee, rather than hoping that most riders won't ask for a station agent to waive it.
another frustrating thing about the signs on the platform is how they spend almost the entire time not showing train times
It's almost always showing:
- Elevator updates
- PSAs
- Literally nothing!
Train times are shown for a few seconds at a time! Miss it, and prepare to watch text scroll slowly until the train times popup again for a few seconds. They're also announcing the exact same PSAs audibly, which is great and more accessible anyway.
It's almost always showing:
- Elevator updates
- PSAs
- Literally nothing!
Train times are shown for a few seconds at a time! Miss it, and prepare to watch text scroll slowly until the train times popup again for a few seconds. They're also announcing the exact same PSAs audibly, which is great and more accessible anyway.
I think you mean the signs are “only” visible in the fare zone. The canopy improvements project will add signs at the entrances showing times for the stations in SF soon: https://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sfentrances
Isn't there a hack/scam where you could (in the absence of a same-station charge) pay less or nothing to ride bart?
I remember people talking bout this ages ago (like, 20 years ago). You keep two bart cards going, and use the same one to enter and leave the same station. If there's a same-station charge, you can use it to enter/leave a nearby station, avoiding the higher fee for longer trips.
Is there a possibility that the same-fare charge is kept around to prevent this hack?
I remember people talking bout this ages ago (like, 20 years ago). You keep two bart cards going, and use the same one to enter and leave the same station. If there's a same-station charge, you can use it to enter/leave a nearby station, avoiding the higher fee for longer trips.
Is there a possibility that the same-fare charge is kept around to prevent this hack?
> Isn't there a hack/scam where you could (in the absence of a same-station charge) pay less or nothing to ride bart?
Well, if you have someone going the opposite route, you could swap tickets at either endpoint (or at a transfer station in between.)
> Is there a possibility that the same-fare charge is kept around to prevent this hack?
I'm pretty sure that's why the excursion fare exists.
Well, if you have someone going the opposite route, you could swap tickets at either endpoint (or at a transfer station in between.)
> Is there a possibility that the same-fare charge is kept around to prevent this hack?
I'm pretty sure that's why the excursion fare exists.
Wouldn't a time check fix this? Enter/leave within 10 minutes, no charge. Enter/leave outside 10 min window, charge the exclusion fee.
Tap/swipe in with one card, tap swipe out with the same card but don't actually leave. Hand the card to your buddy who swipes in and enters with you. Do the same thing on exit. You can then have as many people as you want travel for the cost of one.
A technological countermeasure would be to make it like an airlock - you have to get through the first set of gates (which won't let you return), and then have to tap your card to pass the second gate to finally exit.
Obviously, this is not a realistic solution - building new exit gates is simply not worth it.
Practically, such behavior if done repeatedly can be detected as an anomaly in card usage patterns, and a human reviewer can surely figure out what you're doing.
Obviously, this is not a realistic solution - building new exit gates is simply not worth it.
Practically, such behavior if done repeatedly can be detected as an anomaly in card usage patterns, and a human reviewer can surely figure out what you're doing.
Blocking exit gates are a safety issue even under what would otherwise be normal operating conditions (e.g., no declared threat).
Absent some sort of ranged tag detection (e.g., NFC or RFID), exit determination is exceedingly difficult. I'd argue that NFC/RFID operating beyond a few cm range are themselves a major infosec threat and privacy invasion.
Absent some sort of ranged tag detection (e.g., NFC or RFID), exit determination is exceedingly difficult. I'd argue that NFC/RFID operating beyond a few cm range are themselves a major infosec threat and privacy invasion.
You can trivially jump the fare gates. BART fares are enforced by inspectors checking proof-of-payment; if your group was stopped they’d be caught out by only having one card with an active trip.
I've seen somewhere an analysis of which station pairs this works on. It was either for BART or the Washington Metro, both of which have distance-based fares. (This is amazingly ungooglable.)
Janice Li on the BART Board at least is down for removing the fee. Though it might have to wait for 2023 for Clipper 2.0? No idea why.
https://twitter.com/JaniceForBART/status/1555034168962138112
Rebecca Saltzman (another BART board member) says it's technical execution that prevents the change more so than the board.
https://twitter.com/JaniceForBART/status/1555034168962138112
Rebecca Saltzman (another BART board member) says it's technical execution that prevents the change more so than the board.
This has happened to me on numerous occasions. I’m embarrassed to admit I didn’t even realize it was happening to me for years as it wasn’t until I scrutinized my Clipper transaction history that I noticed it!
They should absolutely remove these, totally insane these fees exist in 2022.
They should absolutely remove these, totally insane these fees exist in 2022.
With the old paper tickets there wasn’t a time limit for how long it took to complete a journey, and with careful use of multiple tickets you could travel between sf and east bay and never pay more than the minimum fare. The excursion fare was the only thing stopping you riding for free, I wonder if the excursion fare was a last minute hack to close out a potential exploit.
Yes, BART sucks, yada yada yada. In hindsight, not commuting by BART anymore was probably the best fucking decision I'd done for my mental health in my life. That said, charging for ingress / egress from the same station's hardly unique to BART. IIRC, this is true for mass rail transits in Taiwan and Japan as well. I presume it's to discourage non-riders from entering the station and displacing other riders: for real busy stations during rush hour it may be a real concern. That's not the case for BART, though it's got a different kind of "non-riders" to contend with...
It's funny how BART (and most California agencies) put very quantifiable costs on people who obey the rules in a way that you've foreseen, but in the meantime completely ignore farehoppers, freeriders, etc. who simply hop over turnstiles or otherwise don't follow the law.
I guess it's too expensive (or "not equitable") to take the time to enforce rules that you've created. And we are too nice to create firm but unpopular rules for things that do come up.
I guess it's too expensive (or "not equitable") to take the time to enforce rules that you've created. And we are too nice to create firm but unpopular rules for things that do come up.
Oh man, this happened to me on the last trip. Some of the BART layouts and signage are bonkers, and you can easily accidently go through turnstiles for the wrong line.
I tried finding someone but there was no staff. I emailed them and no response.
I now chalk it up to the "SF hates you" tax I pay every time I visit.
I tried finding someone but there was no staff. I emailed them and no response.
I now chalk it up to the "SF hates you" tax I pay every time I visit.
BART...
As I always say: One of the richest parts of the richest state of the richest nation on this planet and we have ... BART. How is this possible?
As I always say: One of the richest parts of the richest state of the richest nation on this planet and we have ... BART. How is this possible?
Because the politics of the rich don't make good infrastructure for common use?
So, BART was originally constructed for the purposes of suburban commuters heading into San Francisco for white-collar work with generous no-travel times baked in for maintenance. It's why there's no track duplication: if you're shutting down fully for hours you have plenty of time to work on maintenance. Almost immediately this assumption proved false, the hours got extended but the basic design is still in place. And, if you're really, really rich here you'd pay someone to drive you. Why futz with the BART? All you, the rarefied wealthy, need to do is keep BART limping along just enough that the service workers and middle class white-collar people and what not you rely on can get to work.
It's how we get BART, it's how we get a serious housing shortage.
So, BART was originally constructed for the purposes of suburban commuters heading into San Francisco for white-collar work with generous no-travel times baked in for maintenance. It's why there's no track duplication: if you're shutting down fully for hours you have plenty of time to work on maintenance. Almost immediately this assumption proved false, the hours got extended but the basic design is still in place. And, if you're really, really rich here you'd pay someone to drive you. Why futz with the BART? All you, the rarefied wealthy, need to do is keep BART limping along just enough that the service workers and middle class white-collar people and what not you rely on can get to work.
It's how we get BART, it's how we get a serious housing shortage.
Because it's a public service and it doesn't have incentives to get better. It also has no fair competition from the private sector, given the amount of money in infrastructure that was spent on BART is unmatched.
Look at how much private transportation improved (taxis -> uber).
Besides, BART is the last of SF's problems, I'd rank homelessness and crime higher.
Look at how much private transportation improved (taxis -> uber).
Besides, BART is the last of SF's problems, I'd rank homelessness and crime higher.
How often does this really happen? Maybe once per 2000 rides? It appears there is a way to get your money back although it might be annoying and bureaucratic.
I think there are bigger issues we can focus on with BART. The should focus on fixing the signaling so we can get more trains through the Transbay tunnel. We should make BART more reliable and finish the San Jose extension on time and under budget.
I'm very supportive complaining about public transit and services in general, but making sure that BART provides excellent service for people who change their mind at the last moment, doesn't seem like the best use of their limited resources.
I think there are bigger issues we can focus on with BART. The should focus on fixing the signaling so we can get more trains through the Transbay tunnel. We should make BART more reliable and finish the San Jose extension on time and under budget.
I'm very supportive complaining about public transit and services in general, but making sure that BART provides excellent service for people who change their mind at the last moment, doesn't seem like the best use of their limited resources.
It says right in the article how often this happens. It's between 0.37% and 0.73% depending on the day.
When I paid for BART parking during free hours I just flagged the transaction on my credit card as "merchant did not provide service" or something to that effect and got my money back. I guess if it involves Clipper card you can't easily do this.
Clipper has its own way to request a refund. They refund first-time excursion fees no questions asked.
These are the kind of little things that make me not want to use public transportation if I can help it.
This was common for me in Philly. I'd pay to get onto the station platform then spend 30 minutes waiting for a train that is supposed to come every 10. Then upon realizing it would never come I'd end up with the double penalty of not getting a refund from SEPTA as well as having to pay for an Uber. Only to the get chewed out by my boss at comcast for walking in at 9:45.
Meanwhile all the people coming from the suburbs with an hour long delay would get a pass just because they don't live in the city.
This was common for me in Philly. I'd pay to get onto the station platform then spend 30 minutes waiting for a train that is supposed to come every 10. Then upon realizing it would never come I'd end up with the double penalty of not getting a refund from SEPTA as well as having to pay for an Uber. Only to the get chewed out by my boss at comcast for walking in at 9:45.
Meanwhile all the people coming from the suburbs with an hour long delay would get a pass just because they don't live in the city.
When I was a kid and tried to figure out why this fare/penalty existed, I guessed it was to compensate for people who traveled somewhere to pick up an item from a friend who'd meet them at the station and hand it through the gate to them, and then they'd go back home, all without leaving the station. It all seemed like an intricate solution to a small problem.
What makes it intricate? There's a big table of station x station fares. Filling the diagonal with $6 is no more complicated than filling it with $0.
You're thinking from an implementor's perspective. From the customer's perspective, it's a weird nonlinear pricing model that charges you more to be taken a shorter distance. Honest people who forgot their keys at home or whatever and need to run back home have to deal with the nonlinearity.
In ye olden days, my company had a courier who would shuttle interoffice mail between the Walnut Creek and downtown SF offices on BART all day. So I could see this happening.
Two things about excursion fares:
1. The MUNI "A" Fast Pass doesn't charge excursion fares inside SF. If you commute regularly in SF, the Type A Fast Pass is a great option, especially if you can get a subsidy from work.
2. Otherwise, a Bart attendant can scan your ticket, see that you recently entered and let you out for free, and fix your account so you can get back in without hassle.
1. The MUNI "A" Fast Pass doesn't charge excursion fares inside SF. If you commute regularly in SF, the Type A Fast Pass is a great option, especially if you can get a subsidy from work.
2. Otherwise, a Bart attendant can scan your ticket, see that you recently entered and let you out for free, and fix your account so you can get back in without hassle.
Alooong time ago before this kind of same station exit fee existed, it was very widely know among teenagers that you could buy a ticket with the lowest amount required so that you could exit the station and so what would happen would a bunch of teenagers would buy cheap tickets and then do all kinds of money saving maneuvers such as tail gating their friend or a stranger through the exit gate while holding their ticket in their hand just above the machine etc, so that they did not consume any fare at the far side yet still had a ticket visible and weren't jumping over the gate. It was super widely know and many kids would tour the whole bay area for super cheap on weekends if they had nothing better to do.
I'm just saying this is why they came up with that fee.
Obviously any adult with a real job wouldn't stoop to such antics.
I'm just saying this is why they came up with that fee.
Obviously any adult with a real job wouldn't stoop to such antics.
It's been quite a while since I rode BART (I interned in SF in 2014, and visited briefly again I think in 2015), but I remember noticing that in the list of fares for different stops from the given station you're in, riding to the end of the line was actually cheaper than stopping at the airport (the second-to-last stop IIRC) on one of the lines. Basically, since they knew more people would get off at the airport than the stop past it, they charged more to get off there. I never did ride all the way to the end of the line, but I assumed that they made sure to hike the price from that stop to the airport as well so you couldn't purposely go there, get off, and then reboard to save a few bucks (although I imagine the time spent doing that wouldn't really be worth it to most people anyhow).
[deleted]
I think this is a really great opportunity to mention that all policies need two important criteria: an audit date, and a mandatory (and renewable) sunset date.
In the Netherlands (where I live) most stations have gates. When you check in with ov-chipkaart [1], 10 or 20 euro are debited until you check out and the fare is settled. However, you have 60 minutes to check out at the same station without being charged. Is that so difficult?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-chipkaart
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-chipkaart
I recently paid for BART parking garage during free hours because there is no sign anywhere that tells you which hours paid parking is enforced. I looked it up after I paid for the spot and realized I didn't need to. I imagined the reason for this was the same. They are making extra money by not informing when you don't need to pay, why change it?
One solution here is that you can actually talk to a bart agent and they provide you with a sticker that you can use to get out without tapping. You show the sticker at the next reentry to get in without tapping again.
The problem though, more often than not, the agents are missing from their booths. Also doesn’t help if the exit and reentry are two different stations.
The problem though, more often than not, the agents are missing from their booths. Also doesn’t help if the exit and reentry are two different stations.
> You show the sticker at the next reentry to get in without tapping again
I’ve been doing this for years and never seen this. 100% of the time they want to fix the card and peel the sticker off at the outside window, then ask me to tap in at the turnstile.
I’ve been doing this for years and never seen this. 100% of the time they want to fix the card and peel the sticker off at the outside window, then ask me to tap in at the turnstile.
That is definitely the problem. And I've dealt with it by being resilient and having more than one way to use the system. A bit of a pain, but there's only one BART and thankfully most others don't operate this way.
"Also doesn’t help if the exit and reentry are two different stations."
What about the same station, but on a different day?
What about the same station, but on a different day?
As someone who is not familiar with this transit system, but familiar with my own....this is criminal ... I would have a fit to be charged for not using the service.....
we have a different system. timed tickets....or monthly passes or day passes....wtf is this robbery.
no offense...but this is the opposite of free market principles at work...this is straight extortion
we have a different system. timed tickets....or monthly passes or day passes....wtf is this robbery.
no offense...but this is the opposite of free market principles at work...this is straight extortion
Free market, extortion, and robbery are not exclusive from each other :)
But you're right. Transit like this is rarely the free market at work in the US, though, you're right It's operated by a governmental entity. It's hard to have competing subway systems.
But you're right. Transit like this is rarely the free market at work in the US, though, you're right It's operated by a governmental entity. It's hard to have competing subway systems.
It's a tax on those that have other transportation options when BART fails
So BART fails, and you decide to leave through the same station. If you just walked through the gates, you get charged ~$7.
But BART failed, so wouldn't there be some instruction? Would you not see the many other people leaving via the emergency gate, which doesn't charge you?
I'm confused on how the same station fare is a tax on people that have other transportation options. I would agree if you said it's a tax on people that accept systems unilaterally.
But BART failed, so wouldn't there be some instruction? Would you not see the many other people leaving via the emergency gate, which doesn't charge you?
I'm confused on how the same station fare is a tax on people that have other transportation options. I would agree if you said it's a tax on people that accept systems unilaterally.
The problem is that as far as the fare card is concerned you are still "inside" the system until you tap out, so you will not be able to re-enter the system if you leave without tapping out through the emergency gate.
There's no instruction when there is a delay, besides just wait the 30 minutes or pay the tax and get an Uber
This could be prevented by posting wait times for the next set of trains clearly on the entrances, on most stations is only available inside the gates.
New york does this but san francisco hates you, so they dont.
New york does this but san francisco hates you, so they dont.
I'd jump the turnstyles on exit. I am happy to risk the consequences vs paying to leave the station. That's just bananas!
The problem is that you're still marked as having entered the system, but never exited. So the turnstiles won't let you in next time you try to enter a station, as I understand it.
The proper SF solution, based on my observations, is to just jump the turnstiles every time, going in or going out. I've watched guys camped out on the floor shooting up in clear view of the attendant, I assume if that flies they probably won't chase you down for just jumping a turnstile. (Yes, I do pay every time I ride BART, and yes I have been bitten by this stupid goddamn charge, and no there wasn't any attendant at the station to fix it)
The proper SF solution, based on my observations, is to just jump the turnstiles every time, going in or going out. I've watched guys camped out on the floor shooting up in clear view of the attendant, I assume if that flies they probably won't chase you down for just jumping a turnstile. (Yes, I do pay every time I ride BART, and yes I have been bitten by this stupid goddamn charge, and no there wasn't any attendant at the station to fix it)
Ah, of course. Are single use tickets available on bart? Perhaps another workaround?
This is a strangely editorialized title. Where did $6.20 come from? The article repeatedly identifies the fee as amounting to $5.75.
Article is from 2017, it has been increased since to $6.20 or $6.40 depending on the page you load
>BART's Excursion Fare is $6.20 (for a Clipper Card) or $6.70 (regular adult paper ticket).
https://www.bart.gov/guide
>The excursion fare set on January 1, 2020 is $6.40 for Clipper and $6.90 for paper tickets.
https://www.bart.gov/tickets
>BART's Excursion Fare is $6.20 (for a Clipper Card) or $6.70 (regular adult paper ticket).
https://www.bart.gov/guide
>The excursion fare set on January 1, 2020 is $6.40 for Clipper and $6.90 for paper tickets.
https://www.bart.gov/tickets
This is in case you decide not to take the train, or forgot something at home.
I suspect the excursion fare today is trying to disincentivize the use of the trains and stations as shelters by the unhoused. But others have pointed out that it is to prevent fare hacking, also.