Skip navigation.

Who Owns BART ?

Yes I would like to know if someone knows who exactly owns BART? I know it is substidized by the state, feds, and most of all by the riders, ever since it started its been losing money, yet they continue to add new additions, extentions,even though the public has said no,there deficit continues to keep getting bigger and bigger, now that the state and federal government are not contributing as much the only way to get more money is from its riders, again who actually owns BART? The state, is Bart a private company? If it is a private company shouldnt the tax paying public be able to vote if Bart should stay in business, since it is a losing proposition just like [GM] does anyone know?

icrew's picture

BART is a public

BART is a public transportation agency, much like Muni, or AC Transit, or whoever.

BART is owned by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, just as the Golden Gate Bridge is owned by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District.

It's controlled by a publicly-elected board of directors. Each board member represents--and is elected by the residents of--one of the 9 districts within the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.

There are also already votes on things like line extensions. For example, in the November 2008 election, the residents of Santa Clara County passed a supplemental sales tax measure to provide funding to extend BART to San Jose.

So, if you're not happy with how BART is being run, contact your BART BoD representative, or work to get them replaced in the next election.

I think its just a little

I think its just a little more involved than just replacing the BART BODs ,I would suggest to look at the money that is collected from substities from the state,and fed money and of course the BART riders, I say look at SAN FRANCISCO, How did the heading of BART begin with SAN FRANCISCO? I think that SAN FRANCISCO should be looked at and you will find all the answeres of why BART is so agressive in laying there tracks at time expense of there riders especially at times like these. Look at the muni,Golden Gate bridge that was paid for long ago, SAN FRANCISCO, [STATE CALIF]is in debt up to its little pink pantys. I think the people of the citys, countys, that BART runs threw or has intentions of such should have a good look, maybe even an audit of SAN FRANCISCO.

If Santa Clara County gets

If Santa Clara County gets BART, will the districts/management be re-done to properly reflect
the populations involved? San Jose is the 10th largest city in the country,
is bigger than San Francisco, bigger than Boston, bigger than Denver. It should therefore
have more influence over BART and the rest of Bay Area transit policy than the
smaller burgs.

imeanyoufeelme's picture

Fortunately, no. Since San

Fortunately, no. Since San Jose sucks so much, voters from all the other areas have decided that they shouldn't have any say. We wouldn't want voters from a characterless concentration of suburban sprawl ,misnomered as a city, having a say in anything.

icrew's picture

No, as Santa Clara County is

No, as Santa Clara County is not buying in to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, they're only paying for BART to run a line from Warm Springs to Santa Clara (or maybe just Berryessa). This is the same arrangement as the SFO extension--you'll notice that there's no BART BoD representation from San Mateo county, even though BART-to-SFO runs through there.

As I understand it (though others can likely explain it better), a county can "buy into" the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and get representation on the BoD, but that involves a rather substantial payment. Something about how the people in the original 3 counties (SF, Alameda, and Contra Costa) paid to have the original system built, and any new county joining has to chip in their share of that initial payment. (I don't know if that's totally accurate, or the exact details, but that's the gist of it.)

Right, if they want a say in

Right, if they want a say in how the whole system runs they they have to buy an equal (however that is defined relative to the other districts) share in the whole system. That would cost a lot more than just building an extension.

By looking deeper into the

By looking deeper into the origins of BART it seems that only a few countys were first grouped to form this endever, except for San Mateo who suppositly chipped in $200,000,000 without joining BART, so either the tax payers of other countys will carry them in future development or of course the riders, There is so much under the table, dealing the public is not aware of, if you read the history of BART, its origin till now, the formations of countys that now make up the what I call the [Corporation of BART], I think that BART is an never ending losing buisness Corporation not unlike GM created by a conglomerate. I agree it takes people off the roads but how long will the [tax payers,riders] be able to continue to keep them afloat? I think that an audit should take place concerning [BART Corporation] not an in Corporation audit or even a state audit being that the state might be involved? But an independant audit held by an audit firm picked by the public [Not the shark guarding the sardines] and demand it by the taxpayers, riders, What do you think?

FYI the other counties voted

FYI the other counties voted not to join.

"I think that BART is an

"I think that BART is an never ending losing buisness Corporation not unlike GM created by a conglomerate."

Transportation is, by any accurate definition, a negative cash-flow business in and of itself. But this is imminently justifiable, beuuase transportation is not a business in and of itself. If it were, you would surely expect a profit to be turned on every mile of street, road, highway, causeway, bridge, tunnel, rail, runway and interchange in the US. Transportation systems are funded by the populace because they are essential to the life and commerce of the areas and people the methods of transportation serve.

So I understand you are mad that BART is a losing business on one hand -- it's absolutely unacceptable that we have the budget gaps that we do; that we've had two fare increases now in the last 2 years, the first justified by increasing service, and the latter concomitant with taking that increased service away; the disparity in the treatment of compensation between executives and other workers, etc. -- yet on the other hand, I think your corporation / profitability metaphor is way overextended and absolutely doesn't apply to the paradigm in which BART operates.