Te-Rich 2-in-1 Universal Car Cigarette Lighter Phone Holder Mount Charger with Dual USB (3.1A Max) for iPhone, Samsung Galaxy and More Android Smartphones - Built-in Lightning Cable
- Built-in Lightning Cable, no need to carry around an extra cable wherever you go, tangle-free feature keeps cord clean and tidy, no messy wires.
- Easy One-handed Operation, one touch mounting system locks and releases the device with just a push of a finger.
- 360? Degree Rotating Flexible Gooseneck Rotating Clamp, adjustable holder cradle to view your device at any angle or orientation while driving.
-Dual USB Chargers with Over Current and Over Charge Protection, this car lighter phone charger holder provides maximum reliability without compromising charging ability.
Dual USB Charger (3.1A in total)
Max Clamp Width - 3.3 Inches
Length of Gooseneck - 6.5 Inches
Length of Lighter Plug - 3.3 inches
Compatible Electronic Devices:
All iPhone Models - iPhone X, 8, 7, 7Plus, 6s Plus, 6s, 6, 6 Plus, SE, 5s, 5c, 5, 4s, 4
Samsung Galaxy Models - S8, S7 Edge, S7, S6 Edge+, S6 Edge, S6, S5, S4, S3, S2, Note 5, Note 4, Note 3, Note 2
Android Smartphones - HTC One, Google Nexus, LG, Nokia Lumia, Blackberry, Sony Xperia, Motorola Droid and most GPS Devices
Other iOS/Android Smartphones
1. The cell holder is designed for VERTICAL lighter sockets. Make sure you check to see where your cigarette lighter is and determine whether it would interfere with anything in your car.
2. The built-in lightning connector may NOT compatible with some phone cases with a narrow charging opening, such as Lifeproof and Otterbox iPhone cases.
3. The lightning cable is for charging only, can't sync your Apple devices.
CONVENIENT AND COMPACT - Built-in a charging cable for iOS devices, such as iPhone X, 8, 7, 6, 5s, 5c, 5, se, don't have to carry around an extra cable wherever you go, tangle-free feature keeps cord clean and tidy, no messy wires(Note this charger's lightning connector is not compatible with Lifeproof or Otterbox cases)
RELIABLE CAR CHARGERS - One lightning connector and dual USB charging ports(3.1A max totally) allow to charge 3 devices simultaneously with intelligent output, over-current and over-charger protection, makes this gadget very handy when traveling with families
360 DEGREE ROTATION - Flexible goosenack and adjustable cradle clamp, easy to view your device at any angle or orientation while driving
UNIVERSAL SETTINGS - Holds 2.16 to 3.86 inches wide smartphone or portable GPS including iPhone X/8/7/6/6s/6S Plus/6/5/5s/SE, Samsung Galaxy S8/S7/S6 Edge/S6/S5/Note 5/Note 4, HTC One/ LG G4, and more Android phones
WHAT YOU GET - Te-Rich Cell Phone Holder for Car Power Socket with Built-in Charging Cable for iPhones, our worry-free 12-month warranty and friendly customer service


text:
3 bedroom Luxury Villa in Plettenberg Bay from R500 per person sharing
Beachfront Penthouse Villa
The Penthouse is a luxury villa set in a prime location, directly opposite the ever-popular Central Beach in the heart of Plettenberg Bay. Robberg Beach is within easy reach as well.
The Penthouse offers the best of both: location & luxury. Being part of a security complex, it also offers peace-of-mind. A shopping center with restaurants, groceries and more is right below the complex, for your convenience.
This self-catering apartment consists of 3 bedrooms, all en-suite, opening onto the wrap around balcony which boasts spectacular views. This patio houses a Jacuzzi, large covered entertainment area with built in BBQ/braai and dining table, sunloungers as well as a separate sunset viewing deck found upstairs.
Ideal for a family or group of friends, also a couple.
- Prime Location
There are 3 bedrooms sleeping 6 people very comfortably.
Main Bedroom: With Queen size bed, en-suite bathroom with shower & romantic, sunken bath. Opens onto the Patio/Balcony. TV.
Second Bedroom: With twin beds. Separate bathroom with shower. Opens onto the Patio/Balcony.
Third Bedroom: With double bed, large glassed in & sun-filled en-suite bathroom with romantic shower. Opens onto the Patio/Balcony.
Light-filled and spacious open-plan lounge, dining and kitchen area.
Living Area – Large lounge opening onto the outdoor area. TV with Satellite TV (DSTV). Built-in fireplace.
Dining Area – With ample seating.
Kitchen – An immaculate, fully equipped kitchen.
Outdoors – Large covered entertainment area with built in barbeque, dining table, Jacuzzi, sunloungers and separate sunset viewing deck. Great views all around.
Jacuzzi, built-in braai, viewing deck, fireplace, DSTV. Ample parking, security complex, walking distance to the beach. Shopping center below the complex.
Ample secure parking in the complex (underground and parking bays).
In a security complex, across the road from Central Beach, Plettenberg Bay.
Beach – 1 minute walk
Restaurants – 1 minute walk (below the complex)
Shops – 1 minute walk (below the complex)
Plettenberg Bay City Centre – 7 min walk
The Penthouse, Plettenberg Bay, 3 Bedroom Luxury Villa.
For more information and photos, have a look at our Facebook Listing
For more Plett Villas, have a look at our Facebook Page

domain: travel


text:
DISCLAIMER - I am not a Financial Advisor and do not work for any Brokerage Firm. The opinions given are of my own and are not to be used as professional advice. These are my findings and can hopefully help you to make informed decisions on investing. Consult a Broker or Lawyer before making any investment.
What I Love About Vanguard Investments
There are several really good investment brokerage houses. I have used about 10 over my 30 years of investing, and am now using just 3 where I actively manage my investments. This week we will discuss what I love about Vanguard Investments. We did a review on one of the best investments books which is the Little Book of Common Sense Investing by Vanguard founder Jack Bogle. You can read about that book here:
This book clearly points out that it is very difficult to beat the average of the stock market consistently. So using that information, I have concentrated a lot of my investments on ETFs that make up the full market indexes which are listed in that article.
Vanguard Investments Group has been around for a lot of years. They may be the premier brokerage from the standpoint of offering so many good mutual funds and ETFs. Remember though, that you can buy those ETFs at other brokers also.
I review my investments on a bi-weekly schedule, and the thing that stands out is that my Vanguard investments rarely lose any money. They have an excellent group of managers over their funds and ETFs, and while most ETFs are not managed, some are. I will admit that more of my speculative investments (which are never more than 5% of my total portfolio) are invested at Schwab and Fidelity.
So I want to clarify that if all things were equal (same exact investments in each brokerage), there would be little variance in one or the other. I think what we can learn from this is that Vanguard mutual funds and ETFs are excellent. If you are unfamiliar with the varying types of investments, read my articles on the definitions of the main 4.
(Stocks, ETF (Exchange Traded Funds, Mutual funds and bonds.) First 3 are in article one, bonds are in a separate article.
Advantages of Vanguard Group:
Investing recommendation: (Never buy mutual funds with Load fees.)
Disadvantages of Vanguard Group:
So in conclusion, overall Vanguard is a good company. My wife has a Roth IRA there and we intend to keep it.
Advantages / Differences in IRAs:
We will cover Schwab Investments and Fidelity Investments next week and show their pros and cons.
See Vanguard Website
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by HOSTEK

domain: economics


text:
Just as it was in Love Machine, in Love Machine 2 a series of gags complement a script that is at times a little too predictable, but which, overall, provides the viewer with an hour and a half of laughter. The charisma of Georgy (and, of course, of talented Thomas Stipsits) is the real focus around which the whole film revolves.
The working-class struggle, the need to ‘grow up’, but also – and above all – love torments are the absolute protagonists in Taking it Back. Andreas Schmied, who has always had a great aptitude for entertaining comedies, has attempted a mix of social discourse and sentimental aspects, paying more attention to the latter.
Chasing the Line focuses entirely on its charismatic protagonist – the legendary Austrian ski champion Franz Klammer – and, at the same time, provides an exhaustive portrait of the sport world and all its most controversial aspects.
Divided mainly into a series of sometimes too predictable gags, Love Machine suffers a lot from a weak screenplay, whose twists can already be easily imagined after only a few minutes. Despite the charisma of the talented Thomas Stipsits in the leading role.

domain: artistic


- Investing Guide
- Bitcoin vs.
- How to Buy ‘BTC’
- Bitcoin Whitepaper
Securities.io is committed to rigorous editorial standards. We may receive compensation when you click on links to products we review. Please view our affiliate disclosure. Trading involves risk which may result in the loss of capital.
Table Of Contents
Throughout the history of the world's first successful cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, there have been particular moments that have reshaped its destiny. A lot has happened since it was first introduced to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto. As such, taking the time to learn about the top 10 Bitcoin moments that changed the market is a smart way to improve your understanding and improve future ROI opportunities.
The top of this list must begin with the release of the Bitcoin whitepaper. In this now-famous document, which is available in 19 languages, Nakamoto describes how Bitcoin could function as an electronic peer-to-peer cash system. The document cited earlier attempts at making digital money and revealed how the introduction of a timestamp eliminated the double-spend issue.
The Bitcoin whitepaper was met with a medium response at first, as the community was tiny. It was these early Bitcoiners that would create a trillion-dollar industry that continues to expand. The Bitcoin whitepaper started a revolution by letting the cat out of the bag in terms of blockchain transparency.
January 3rd, 2009, marks another major day for Bitcoin. This was the official launch of the network. Until that time, only Nakamoto had operated the system. During this time, Nakamoto mined approximately 1M BTC, which has remained untouched since that day.
Bitcoin's launch wasn't met with a huge celebration as few people understood the magnitude of the creation. However, it's obvious to many that Nakamoto definitely saw the potential to upend the financial district. This belief is evident by the quoting of the Times magazine headline, “Chancellor on the brink of the second bailout for banks,” placed in Bitcoin's Genesis block.
Pizza Day is a Bitcoin holiday that is still celebrated. It represents the first time BTC was used in a real-world transaction to purchase goods. Until that point, Nakamoto and a few others had only ever sent the digital asset to others in the group. That changed on May 22, 2010.
This was the day that Laszlo Hanyecz, a crypto miner from Florida, posted on the Bitcoin forum that he would pay anyone 10,000 Bitcoin if they would pick up and deliver two large pizzas. It's vital to remember that Bitcoin was only worth a few cents at that time, and the pizzas were around $25. Today, the event serves as a bittersweet reminder of the long journey Bitcoin has experienced.
It was the dark web that first demonstrated the advantages of a peer-to-peer electronic currency. The dark web is a massive list of websites that are not listed on any search engine. Within the dark web are marketplaces, with one of the most famous that is now closed called Silk Road.
The Silk Road was created by Ross Ulbricht to serve as a completely open market. The market accepted Bitcoin due to the belief it was anonymous at the time. Infamously, the Silk Road offered access to everything from fake IDs to drugs and even assassinations. Later, Ulbricht stated that he created the market but didn't monitor or control its contents.
The activity created by the Silk Road market drove BTC value up, with the token hitting the $1M market cap for the first time during this era. People from all over the world learned about Bitcoin for the first time when they interacted with this platform. Interestingly, many of these early adopters became very successful thanks to their many Bitcoin holdings.
The Silk Road didn't last very long, and in October 2013, federal agents swooped in and arrested Ulbricht, who was going by the nickname Dread Pirate Roberts, and shut down the Silk Road. The arrest made international headlines and resulted in the US confiscating $183M in crypto and Ulbricht receiving a life sentence.
Mt. Gox Launches
Mt.Gox was the first centralized exchange to hit the market. The effects of this platform were felt immediately as it provided the only way for people to get their hands on Bitcoin without the need to mine or get sent it from others. The Mt.Gox exchange was responsible for over 70% of the total Bitcoin transaction volume at its peak.
The exchange, which was founded by Jed McCaleb on July 17, 2010, provided a vital on-ramp into the market. It also set the pace for the future of crypto exchanges, with CEX (Centralized Exchanges) remaining a vital aspect of the industry today. Of course, the story doesn't end well for Mt.Gox.
Mt. Gox Fails
The failure of Mt.Gox is on par with the sheer importance of its launch. Just like how Mt.Gox introduced the world to crypto exchanges, it also showed the importance of leveraging code auditors and other security measures. In February 2014, Mt.Gox was hacked for 850,000 bitcoins.
This hack was the first in a series of attacks that would ultimately leave the exchange bankrupt. The sudden closure of the industry's premier exchange led to massive price pullbacks, with Bitcoin entering a multi-year crypto winter. Despite the setbacks and the fact that Mt.Gox victims were never compensated for their losses, Bitcoin remains the world's #1 crypto.
Crypto Frenzy 2017
No one could argue against the fact that 2017 was a breakout year for cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin was no exception. It was this year that Bitcoin first broke the $20K price point. This breakthrough marked a massive rally for the token, which had fallen to $3K months prior during the crypto winter.
This year saw Bitcoin become a household name. Naysayers and those who had counted the crypto down for the count had to swallow their words and accept the fact that cryptocurrencies are here to stay. As such, 2017 was a crucial year for many crypto projects and traders.
Bitcoin Cash Hardfork
The Bitcoin Cash hard fork is perhaps one of the most controversial instances in the history of Bitcoin. During this incident, the community was split on how to handle best the growing congestion faced by the network. The 2017 crypto craze had pushed the boundaries of the network's scalability, and users were experiencing massive fees and delays due to congestion.
The debate eventually led to two massive mining pools, backed by Bitmain, ViaBTC, and BitcoinABC, hardforking to Bitcoin Cash. The only real difference between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin at that time was a larger 2MB block size as opposed to Bitcoin's 1MB. The debate included many Bitcoin supporters such as Roger Ver, at the time known as ‘Bitcoin Jesus' for his contributions to the blockchain space.
The Bitcoin Core team felt that increasing the block size wasn't the best strategy and would lead to continual block size increases. Interestingly, they were correct, and Bitcoin Cash has since hard forked and increased its block size. Today, the project is not a major contender, while Bitcoin remains the top coin in terms of market cap.
The Segwit upgrade was the answer that Bitcoin Core developers came up with rather than increasing block size. This upgrade separated parts of the transactions from the blockchain to reduce congestion. The other thing it did was open the door for the integration of off-chain protocols such as the Lightning Network.
The Lightning Network leverages personal payment channels to lower interactions with the main chain. These channels enable unlimited transactions that post to the mainnet when the channel closes. This structure reduces congestion and enables Bitcoin to provide microtransactions and smart contract support. It also improves performance as LN transactions only take seconds.
El Salvador raised the stakes when it became the first country in the world to make Bitcoin legal tender. This ruling means that any merchant and government agency must accept the coin as a form of payment. The maneuver was spearheaded by a long-term crypto supporter and president of the country, Nayib Bukele.
Bukele's out-of-the-box thinking has paid off in many ways. For one, the country was able to educate its citizens via a large blockchain campaign that included the free distribution of Bitcoin to all citizens. To make the project a reality, El Salvador issued all citizens $60 in BTC in a Lightning Network-enabled wallet.
The decision to make Bitcoin legal tender occurred in September 2021 and was condemned by centralized financial regulators. This condemnation didn't pause the country's resolve. The nation even opened a Bitcoin vacation destination town called Bitcoin Beach.
El Salvador remains the top nation in the world for Bitcoiners seeking an open market and friendly regulations. The country is also heavily involved in the mining sector. The country currently operates a selection of massive mining farms that use 100% renewable energy harnessed from the nation's volcanic activity.
Many More Bitcoin Moments to Come
When you examine the history of Bitcoin, you notice a pattern: the community stays strong. The journey this project has taken encompasses all regions of the world and all walks of life. From individual programmers to entire nations, Bitcoin continues to offer a smart solution and access to a freer economy. For these reasons, it remains the big fish.


- A Mismanaged Gravy Train
- Poor Performance
- Unsafe at Any Speed
- The Pathologies of Government: Propping Up Failing Public Transit
- Key Recommendations to Improve BART Service
- News Coverage
As the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system approaches its fiftieth-year anniversary, an investigation of BARTs operations by researchers with the California Golden Fleece® Awards has found a scandal-ridden, undependable, dangerous, and excessively costly public transportation system serving the San Francisco Bay Area. For those reasons, BART has received the Independent Institutes twelfth California Golden Fleece® Award, a dishonor given to California state or local agencies or government projects that swindle taxpayers or break the public trust. This report offers key recommendations to improve the performance of BART.
BART proclaims a mission of providing safe, reliable, clean, quality transit service for its riders. Based on those measures, the transportation system fails on every count. Instead, BART has proven to be unsafe, unclean, and deficient in various areas of performance, such as reliability. It is also financially reckless, suffering massive losses despite being propped up by billions of dollars in special government subsidies. Stories abound of mismanagement and outrageous scandals involving BART employees and officers.
A lack of market disciplinespecifically, vigorous competition and a profit motivehas allowed BART to disregard the needs of customers and mismanage costs. BART should not be permitted to continue failing Bay Area residents. A comprehensive accounting of its problems demonstrates the need for fundamental reforms and greater transportation options for Bay Area residents.
For more successful approaches, Bay Area residents should look to the East, specifically Hong Kong and Tokyo. Both cities have private for-profit subway systems that are clean, safe, and reliable, with near-perfect on-time performance. Fares, which are not subsidized by the government, are typically lower than BARTs fares because of greater efficiencies. They are also innovative in pursuing new revenue sources through a diversified portfolio of business services. Rather than spending revenue on excessive compensation, these subway systems spend money on customer satisfaction.
In addition, BART riders would benefit from greater competition among an array of transportation options, such as ride share, shuttle buses, shuttle vans, water buses, water taxis, ferries, seaplanes, walking, and biking. If BART faced more vigorous competition from alternatives, it would be forced to provide a better overall customer experience at competitive prices to attract passengers and flourish financially. Finally, changes in work patterns and high-tech transportation innovations could make BART less significanteven obsoletein the long run, casting doubt on todays plans for expansions of the system.
BART began as a proposed solution to emerging growth problems in the San Francisco Bay Area following World War II. Population growth increased automobile congestion, especially on the San FranciscoOakland Bay Bridge, which connects the two cities. The trajectory of growth threatened to make the region dependent on freeways and personal automobiles, which was widely viewed to be unsustainable.
Development of an alternative transit system was not a smooth process. The idea for an underwater high-speed train connecting Oakland and San Francisco came initially from local interests. By 1951, however, a California state commission was created by the California legislature to examine the feasibility of constructing a transbay tube network and to create a plan for building the system.
In 1957, at the commissions recommendation, the legislature created a five-county district, known as the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and authorized the special district to impose new taxes to support its operations. To facilitate approval of the taxes, the legislature lowered the voter approval requirement from two-thirds to 60 percent.
Plans were quickly met with opposition from local voters in two counties, Marin and San Mateo, largely because of the high expected construction cost. By 1962, the district was downsized to three counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco. Voters in the revised district approved the project with 61.2 percent of the votes, barely exceeding the 60 percent threshold that was required. The total projected cost of the project at the time of approval was nearly $1 billion, which equates to about $9 billion today.
Construction costs were not the only source of resistance. According to BART, the legitimacy of the election that approved the bond and the legality of the three-county district were both challenged in court by taxpayers, which resulted in months of construction delays. Ultimately, however, the court ruled in favor of the special district, and construction proceeded.
The construction of BART faced many financial problems, demonstrating a failure to accurately anticipate the true cost of the project from its inception. BART sought an additional $150 million in the form of a bond against a newly authorized half-cent sales tax for counties within the BART district. And federal money was rapidly injected into the project to expand it beyond its original plans and to fund nearly two-thirds of BARTs original 450-car fleet.
On September 11, 1972, roughly 20 years after inception, BART opened for passenger service. Today, nearly 50 years later, it is the fifth largest American rail rapid transit system by volume of passengers, behind the New York City Subway, Washington Metro, Chicago L, and Boston Metro MBTA subway. On an average weekday, preCOVID-19, BART had more than 410,000 passenger rides. And annually, BART typically has more than 125 million passenger rides.
BART trains travel underground in parts of its service area, primarily under San Francisco, and above ground in the East Bay, South Bay, and the Peninsula. Today it has 50 stations, 131 miles of track, and 916 train cars, of which 630 are early legacy cars. BART is funded by a combination of passenger fares, sales and property taxes, bridge tolls, state government assistance, and federal government grants. In theory, oversight is provided by a nine member board of directors. Each elected board member serves a four-year term and is paid $18,037 a year.
A Mismanaged Gravy Train
BARTs problems did not end when construction was finished. To the contrary, since it began offering rides to the public, BART has been a hallmark of waste and mismanagement. With its history of disruptive labor union strikes and grossly overpaid workers, BARTs operating costs are excessive.
Compensation for BART employees is extremely generous. On average, its employees receive 40 percent more than the national average for government workers; historically they receive more than other Bay Area transportation agencies; and they are among the most highly compensated transit workers in the country. But you would never know that based on BARTs history of strikes by angry workers.
One of the most disruptive strikes occurred in 2013. BART workers who were members of the Service Employees International Union and the Amalgamated Transit Union staged a set of massive strikes to push for a 23.5 percent wage increase and more favorable retirement and health benefits. At the time, they were already among the highest-paid transit workers in the country and enjoyed relatively unheard-of benefits, such as $92 per month that BART employees paid for healthcare insurance (in 2013, the national average was $360 per month) and no personal contribution toward their generous pensions. Nevertheless, with little concern for public inconvenience, BARTs striking workforce shut down operations twice within a four-month period and eventually won big. Workers secured a pay increase of more than 15 percent over four years, in exchange for minor concessions such as a 4 percent contribution to their own pensions.
Put plainly, BART overcompensates its employees. For example, train operators receive anywhere between $72,000 and $93,000 per year in base pay for a job that requires only a high school diploma and does not actually require driving the self-operating trains. Benefits are also extremely generous, with employees receiving low-cost or no-cost health, dental, and vision insurance, a lifetime pension, additional retirement contribution, no paycheck deduction for Social Security, and retirement healthcare insurance. According to data collected by Transparent California, in 2019, the highest-grossing BART train operator received $213,073 in total annual pay, equivalent to $259,346 after including the value of benefits.
Perhaps the most egregious example of financial mismanagement and failed oversight is the case of Liang Zhao Zhang, a BART janitor who was paid $271,000 in 2015. The incident was first reported by Transparent California, which revealed that Zhang was paid for allegedly working an average of 114 hours per week in 2015, allowing him to earn more than three times his base salary in overtime pay. For reference, his regular annual salary was $57,945 and 114 hours is nearly three times the full-time work week of 40 hours. Follow-up reporting by Bay Area television station KTVU found video surveillance showing Zhang disappearing into a storage closet for hours during the workday, with no indication that he was actually working.
Zhangs story was jarring, but not unique. Forty-nine other BART janitors received more than $100,000 in 2015. BART confirmed the information to reporters and acknowledged that no auditing had been conducted. But rather than admit failure, BART defended Zhangs compensation. According to Michael Cabanatuan with the San Francisco Chronicle, BART officials said that Zhang legitimately earned his pay by working long and hard. Eventually, in response to widespread public criticism, BART decided to halt and then reduce overtime hours it made available, but that was short lived. By 2017, BART paid more than $52 million in overtime pay. And in 2018, BART employees were again exploiting a lack of oversight and generous overtime policies, with one station agent claiming to have worked 361 days in the year, racking up more than $114,000 in overtime pay. Union contract work rules facilitate excessive overtime.
Employees have learned how good they have it and how to game BARTs compensation system. On Glassdoor, a website that provides insight on employment at different companies, the BART reviews from current and former employees are telling. Among the most common positives is this: Alot [sic] of Overtime [sic], great benefits package.
Another egregious example of overcompensation occurred in 2016 and 2017 when BART paid employees to staff the Warm Springs/South Fremont Station even though the station had no trains or riders. The vacant station had not yet opened for service, but it was staffed by eight paid employees for seven months.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the significant problems with BARTs expensive operations. Approximately 30 percent of BARTs operating costs are fixed; thus operating expenses have not declined at nearly the rate that ridership has fallen. Projected operating deficits (base case ridership scenario), excluding federal subsidies, from fiscal year 2022 through fiscal year 2025 will total a staggering $992 million, with deficits averaging $248 million each year.
To help cut losses, BART has not filled some open job positions and it approved a retirement buyout plan called the District Retirement Incentive Program (DRIP). But relatively few workers (287) accepted a buyout. And those who did were often in key positions, which has required filling the job again.
BART extended contracts with its three largest unions in December 2020, keeping pay and overtime-inducing work rules essentially unchanged for the next three years despite ridership being far below pre-pandemic levels and not expected to recover until near the end of the decade. Layoffs were desperately avoided, and some scheduled pay raises went into effect.
All told, huge deficits due to excessive staffing and employee overcompensation appear to be locked in for the foreseeable future.
Reckless financial mismanagement is also evident in BARTs pension plans, retiree healthcare benefits, and other post-employment benefits. Table 1 reveals that unfunded liabilities for those plans total $1.092 billion. None of the plans are even 75 percent funded. Some argue that a funding ratio of 80 percent or more is adequate, but the American Academy of Actuaries calls this a myth: Pension plans should have a strategy in place to attain or maintain a funded status of 100 percent or greater over a reasonable period of time. By this standard, BART is financially irresponsible given that it is on the hook to pay off these obligations based on past promises made to its employees.
Most BART officials have been silent on the financial mismanagement. But BART Board Director Debora Allen, who represents an area in central Contra Costa County, confronted the problems publicly, writing in 2020 for the Bay Area News Group that BARTs failure to cut operating expenses will continue to worsen its grave financial condition and cause irreparable harm to the long-term sustainability of the system. She noted that BARTs budget is fiscal insanity for not addressing spiraling labor, benefit, or pension costs.
Over the years there have been other scandals, as well, such as union member sabotage of BART facilities and an FBI sting operation investigating BART managers who took kickbacks in exchange for awarding vendor contracts.
Unlike Director Allen, most BART officials have demonstrated a lack of concern for taxpayers and riders who are on the hook to pay for the excessive compensation and operating costs at BART. But these high costs have not translated into exceptional service; in fact, as the next sections reveal, spending on excessive compensation crowds out spending on reliability, cleanliness, and safety. A 2013 BART Board of Investigation report warned, If BART doesnt normalize its benefit packages, the public will feel the consequences in reduced train service and less reliability. That time has come.
Excessive compensation crowds out other objectives. And government subsidies skew priorities (more on subsidies below). Both of those factors have caused BART to provide unreliable service. Key performance indicators tell the story.
BARTs own on time performance data show that service has been getting much worse during the past decade. According to its trend data for both trains and passenger on-time arrivals, there has been a steady long-term drop in dependability. In 2012, for example, approximately 95 percent of trains and passengers arrived on time, meeting the agencys target of 92 percent. By 2015, however, that target was missed for train arrivals; only 88 percent of trains arrived on time. And by 2016, on-time passenger arrivals dropped to 91 percent. By 2018, about 1 in 10 BART riders failed to arrive at their destination on time, whereas 15 percent of trains were delayed.
The JanuaryMarch 2021 Service Performance Review also highlights benchmarks that BART fails to meet. Year to date, (1) ridership is less than half the adjusted COVID-19 standard set by the agency; (2) complaints per 100,000 passenger trips are nearly five times higher than its standard of acceptability; and (3) crimes against riders are more than 10 times the agency standard (more on crimes below).
While the agency boasts high on-time performance in its most recent quarterly overview, during this period the number of trains was reduced and the time between trains was increased. Undoubtedly, those actions were in response to much lower ridership because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But they also make it easier to meet on-time performance metrics by changing the operations on which they are based.
The satisfaction of riders is arguably the best metric to judge BART performance, and that, too, demonstrates a failure to meet expectations. Consider the agencys own Customer Satisfaction Survey, which it has conducted every two years since 1996 and is presented to BARTs Board of Directors. The most recent survey in 2020 was released on January 28, 2021. Its findings were favorably spun by agency officials, but it actually suggests a continuation of a downward trajectory in rider satisfaction.
BART satisfaction ratings have been dropping over time. In the three satisfaction studies preceding the January 2021 report, the share of customers who were very or somewhat satisfied with BART services was 74 percent in 2014, 69 percent in 2016, and 56 percent in 2018. The share of customers saying they considered BART a good value also dropped in each study, hitting 54 percent in the 2018 report. So, it comes as a surprise that the most recent study, the 2020 report, finds satisfaction back at 2014 levels, with 72 percent saying they are either very or somewhat satisfied and about two-thirds saying they consider BART a good value for the money. There are reasons why the recent results cannot be compared to past results.
Rather than question the results, BART circulated a press release proclaiming the recent increase in satisfaction. BART Board President Mark Foley called satisfaction levels in the survey very encouraging, and associated the increase with efforts taken specifically to improve rider experience. But the 2020 sample is markedly different from that of the previous reports, making simple comparisons uninformative. The recent study was fielded during a three-week period in October 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic that saw a severe decline in ridership that skewed the sample toward those who are already most likely to consider BART essential to their transportation needs.
Consider how ridership demographics changed since the previous report. According to the 2020 study, current riders are more likely to have lower household incomes, not have a car, and be somewhat older, compared to those in previous reports. Those are important shifts in the sample, since the report acknowledges that older age and lower income were correlated with more positive feelings toward BART in previous reports. In other words, the sample was narrowed very strongly to riders who were already more likely to view BART favorably. In contrast, people with alternative modes of transportation or an ability to avoid using BART during this time opted out of using the service and were not interviewed.
It is difficult to know exactly how much of the apparent increase in satisfaction is a methodological artifact of the heavily skewed sample. But it is also unlikely to be the only change masking an overall decline in satisfaction.
The biggest and most noticeable effect of an enormous decrease in ridership is reduced crowding. As the most recent report notes, ridership during the fielding of the survey was at 12 percent of typical levels due to the pandemic. And previous low satisfaction scores were impacted largely by complaints about crowding. The reduction in crowding, therefore, which was the result of exogenous events (namely fear about public gathering during a global pandemic and lockdowns imposed by state and local governments), can hardly be attributed to efforts specifically undertaken by BART to alleviate its long-standing crowding problem.
All things considered, it is not surprising that aggregate satisfaction ratings in the 2020 report increased relative to previous reports, but it is hugely misleading. The samples, and therefore the results, cannot be compared in the straightforward fashion suggested by the BART press release. And the fact that it took an 88 percent decrease in ridership (primarily of the BART disaffected), resulting from a global pandemic and statewide lockdowns, to elevate satisfaction to 2014 levels, speaks poorly to the trajectory that BART has been on during the past decade and its misplaced priorities.
As the economy reopens and BART resumes some of its halted services, it is expected that performance, too, will return to normal. Unfortunately, this means more delays, continued missed performance metrics, crowding, and low and declining levels of customer satisfactionnot surprising given persistent crime and grime problems at BART.
Unsafe at Any Speed
Despite serious performance problems, the top complaints from BART riders in recent surveys concern a lack of safety and unsanitary conditions on trains, in stations, and on BART properties. Crime and grime issues have led to a drop in ridership for years, well before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among would-be night and weekend riders.
At the top of the list of rider concerns is safety, as demonstrated by the number of policing-related complaints. Even among the respondents to the 2020 Customer Satisfaction Surveya narrow sample that skews favorably to BARTpersonal security and presence of BART police were among the lowest rated attributes of the system.
Numerous lawsuits against BART allege a breach of duty to keep riders safe. These relate to incidents of robbery, assault, and even murder. One lawyer, representing a plaintiff in a lawsuit against BART, summarized the situation as a free for all on BART to rob people, to kill people, [and] to assault people that is known to any potential criminal. Indeed, even children have been targeted by armed robbers while using BART.
For its part, BART accepts responsibility for passenger safety only within a narrow set of circumstances, which typically does not even include a passenger standing on a BART platform, despite it promising that your safety is BARTs top priority and having its own law enforcement department dedicated to policing the transit system.
Unsurprisingly, news of violence on BART trains and property crimes never ceases, with women frequently the targets. In one recent incident, a female passenger was verbally harassed while on a Pleasanton-bound train, then had a beer can thrown at her, and was nearly pushed off a platform onto the train tracks. Another woman, who was riding BART on her way to work in the morning, was repeatedly punched and robbed in front of bystanders. She told news reporters that, even before her attack, she resorted to dressing like a boy to avoid being targeted while riding BART. And another woman was kidnapped on BART property in San Leandro, then sexually assaulted before being robbed.
Perhaps the most disturbing and chilling recent crime on BART was the July 2018 attack on 18-year-old Nia Wilson and her older sister, Lahtifa, who were both stabbed in the neck with a knife from behind while exiting a train at the MacArthur Station in Oakland. Nia bled to death on the platform. The assailant, who had been riding the same train car as the sisters, was a fare evader and a parolee, and he continued riding BART trains back and forth after the attack, until he was captured about a day later. Wilsons death was the third in less than a week resulting from attacks on the BART system. Hours after Wilsons funeral, two more people were stabbed at the same MacArthur Station.
The attacks demonstrate that BART has become a magnet for criminals, and a danger for law-abiding Bay Area residents. In the four years between 2014 and 2018, violent crimes on BART more than doubled, as approval ratings dropped and ridership fell. In fact, the instances of violence on BART are so numerous that keeping up with them can be challenging. The tag BART attack brings up countless other recent stories, including an attack on a train with a box cutter, mob attacks, and a story of an elderly woman being kicked in the head.
For a transit agency that pledges your safety is BARTs top priority, Bay Area residents were also shocked to learn in January 2016 that a majority of train car security cameras were fake, decoys designed to make it appear that security measures were greater than they were. Even some BART board members were unaware of the dummy cameras. And other actual cameras were broken.
The public became aware of the fake cameras after a passenger was shot and killed on a BART car just feet from what appeared to be a surveillance camera capable of providing video of the killing. The following month, the fake cameras were also no help in locating a missing man. In an interview, however, BART Police Chief Kenton Rainey said that BARTs security system is very robust, despite BART officials later admitting that 77 percent of its train car cameras were fake or did not work.
BART also estimates that fare-gate jumpers cost the system $25 million each year. Others say the actual revenue loss from fare evasion, the gateway crime, is two or three times more. Replacing existing gates with modern gates would eliminate gate-jumping fare evasion.
There was also a vigorous debate in 2019 among BART board directors and the public on whether to ban panhandling, busking, and other forms of solicitation throughout the system. Director Allen, and others, argued that such activities lower ridership, reduce revenue, and harm service quality. The board did not approve the ban on a 5-4 vote.
Even if BART provided a safe passenger experience, which it clearly does not, it would still have to contend with its notoriously filthy train cars and facilities to win back passengers. Consider that one-third of its riders at the beginning of 2021 complained specifically about train interior cleanliness, and biohazard concerns jumped 54 percent from the previous quarter. Those complaints came during a time of unprecedented low ridership, just over a tenth of its normal average weekday volume, and no crowding.
The biohazard complaints are well founded. For example, BART has had to close escalators for repair due to an extraordinary build-up of human feces. An analysis of the bacteria content of BART seats showed fecal and skin-borne bacteria resistant to antibiotics, including one that causes potentially lethal infections growing in the fabric previously used in train cars. Upgrades to its seats to rid them of the fabric helped to a degree, but complaints about drug needles, vomit, urine, and other human waste persist.
Though BART cleans its facilities daily, by its own admission BART has engaged in hygiene theater during the past year, which diverts resources away from traditional issues that affect the cleanliness of its trains. The effort to do such things as wiping down ticket machines has been ineffective in combating the coronavirus and is contrary to guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about how the virus is spread, but it has cost BART $500,000 each month to perform.
Despite the abundance of evidence about the unsafe and unsanitary conditions that have turned away riders and caused satisfaction ratings to plummet, BART officials have offered excuses that minimize responsibility. For example, BART Board Director Bevan Dufty said that they were doing the right things, and instead he said riders are harboring lingering negative experiences from the past.
BARTs ridership numbers will continue to be sensitive to crime and grime issues. Unfortunately, BART does not need to prioritize those concerns because it does not rely solely on customer-based revenue. Governments bail out BART continually by funneling taxpayer money to the failing system.
The Pathologies of Government: Propping Up Failing Public Transit
By all appropriate measures, BART has failed to fulfill its mission of providing safe, clean, and reliable transportation to San Francisco Bay Area residents. And, unfortunately, the problems have been getting worse over time as costs increase and riders choose other options. Though many of the problems with BART are unique to its situation, such as the high-profile overtime pay scandals, other problems are emblematic of government responses to failing urban transit more broadly.
Across the United States, urban transit systems have experienced large declines in ridership. For example, since 2014, there have been double-digit percentage decreases in public transit ridership in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami. And similarly, public transit has sharply fallen out of favor in 40 of the 50 largest American urban areas, as alternatives become more attractive. Nevertheless, taxpayer subsidies for public transit have increased.
Politicians provide concentrated benefits (subsidies) to special interests (public transit riders and employees) in exchange for votes and campaign contributions, while the costs of such schemes (taxes) are dispersed widely among unorganized taxpayers. Between 2017 and 2018, subsidies increased more than $3.7 billion nationally, with money being roughly split between operating costs and capital costs. These massive subsidies led one researcher to call transit systems the urban parasite. More than half of increased operating costs were for labor benefits ($700 million) and salaries and wages ($235 million). This is consistent with BARTs greedy compensation structure discussed earlier.
Taxpayer subsidies for BART are expected to increase with passage of the $1.2 trillion federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in November 2021. The bill does not earmark money specifically for BART, but the San Francisco Bay Area is expected to receive $4.5 billion in guaranteed funds for roads and public transportation. BART may also apply for new federal subsidies from the pool of $39 billion set aside in the bill to modernize public transit systems as well as other funds in the infrastructure package. Bay Area transportation officials expect the new BART subsidies to pay for capital projects that will expand BARTs system.
In response to a clear shift away from public transit use, many progressive lawmakers have proposed eliminating fares entirely. Los Angeles, for example, is moving toward waiving Metro fares completely for students and low-income riders, which comprise more than 70 percent of its passengers. And Kansas Citys $8 million free-fare pilot program is often cited as an archetype for big city implementation, despite a funding gap. In support, some proponents argue that zero-fare public transit is an investment for social justice that improves quality of life, and costs should not factor into the decision. Others argue that subsidizing transit fees comes with a positive financial return by increasing economic activity. Several significant counterpoints, however, undermine these arguments.
The first counterpoint is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Taxpayers will ultimately pay for the cost-shifting schemes designed to increase ridership. Los Angeless $7 billion public transit system is already heavily subsidized, with fares comprising only about 4 percent of the operating budget. Eliminating fares will eliminate about $280 million in revenue, which will need to be made up elsewhere, such as by imposing new freeway tolls on drivers. In other cities, where transit operating budgets are more reliant on money collected from riders, eliminating fares will require more expansive and expensive tax hikes.
In recent years, BART has moved in the same dangerous direction to prop up its own failing train system. It has suffered huge losses in ridership, particularly during off-peak times, and implemented costly schemes to try to bring its numbers back up. From 2015 to 2019, night and weekend ridership fell by about 10 million passengers total, despite population growth in the Bay Area. Put bluntly, when people do not have to ride BART to commute to work, a growing number of Bay Area residents prefer to stay away from its trains. But BART wants to remain relevant, so it resorts to providing discounted rides for low-income residents and senior citizens, runs various promotions, and gives away free weekend rides.
All options to lure riders come at a cost, however, given that traditionally about half of BARTs operating budget comes from fare revenue. At an operating budget of roughly $1 billion, implementing a zero-fare system, if it were to happen, would cut roughly $500 million from BARTs revenue and result in more crimes by problem riders, the need for more transit police, and a more unpleasant rider experience overall. Free fares would attract more people experiencing homelessness, a problem that BART has already acknowledged it has.
The second counterpoint to cost-shifting schemes and subsidies is that decreased ridership signals problems with public transit systems that should be directly addressed, rather than shielding the systems from accountability. In a truly competitive market, private companies must be responsive to their customers needs to stay in business. When a business fails to deliver a price and quality combination that consumers want, another business will capture its customers and revenue by offering better, and oftentimes cheaper, goods and services. But public agencies do not confront the same budget constraints nor the same pressures to provide quality service or risk losing their revenue.
BART and other public transit systems incur massive losses, and then taxpayers bail them out. As BART hides the true cost of its service to its riders through subsidies, free rides, and other measures, at the same time BART lowers its service quality through less safety, dirtier cars, slower service, and so on, such that ride quality per fare dollar stays roughly the same. Riders pay for the subsidies with a slower, dirtier, and more dangerous travel experience. More subsidies bail out BART financially, but the taxpayer assistance results in more of the same: substandard performance, poor cleanliness, and less safety, thereby pushing riders away and decreasing customer-based revenue. BART officials have become more focused on pleasing politicians offering bail outs than on pleasing customersthis is a corrupting influence of subsidies.
Finally, benefits associated with greater use of public transit are actually benefits largely attributable to increased mobility, which can be achieved in ways other than by subsidizing poor-performing and poorly managed public transit. The next section discusses key recommendations that would result in increased mobility that is responsive to the needs of the public without heavy-handed government involvement.
Key Recommendations to Improve BART Service
Nearly 50 years after BART operations began, the downward trajectory of the systems reliability, safety, cleanliness, and overall value makes clear that fundamental reforms are needed. BART, once viewed as the solution to changing times, is now a persistent problem in need of permanent solutions that reflect todays realities.
1. End government subsidies to BART.
BART should not receive government subsidies. If subsidies ended, BART would no longer be beholden to politicians, and instead it would be forced to focus on satisfying its customers. BART would become accountable to its riders, who demand reasonable operating costs, safety in stations and on trains, clean cars, and on-time performance. Ending taxpayer subsidies would also help promote economic growth by lowering tax burdens.
Typically, about 42 percent of BARTs roughly $1 billion operating budget is funded by taxpayer subsidies. These funds come primarily from sales and property tax proceeds ($328 million in fiscal year 2020), as well as state transit assistance ($39 million). The total budgeted financial assistance for fiscal year 2020 was $402 million. From July 2020 to June 2021 (fiscal year 2021), BART received an additional $298 million in federal fundingmostly from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Actto make up for lost fare revenue due to responses to COVID-19. Subsidies, therefore, comprise 80 percent of BARTs total operating budget for fiscal year 2021. In addition, about 95 percent of BARTs current capital budget of $1.42 billion is funded by taxpayers, either by General Obligation Bonds or direct subsidies. Hundreds of millions of dollars of more subsidies will be needed in the future to keep BART afloat.
The local, state, and federal subsidies should end because they drive a wedge between BARTs revenue and BARTs customers and their priorities. Ending the subsidies would empower passengers in the long term. BART would have to improve the quality of service out of pure necessity. Making BART reliant on passenger fares and other customer-based revenue, such as advertising and parking, means that it could not survive unless it kept enough passengers satisfied with the service to pay for it at true cost. Ending subsidies would bring riders back over time as service improved. By contrast, reliance on subsidies makes transportation providers such as BART responsive to politicians who control the subsidy purse strings, not its customers.
Subsidies operate against the interests of Bay Area residents who want safe, clean, reliable BART service because the bail outs reduce pressure to perform. Free or reduced fares, which are made possible by taxpayer subsidies, allow BART to continue falling short of its own performance standards and customer expectations of safety and cleanliness. Put plainly, a passenger may be willing to arrive late to their destination on a dirty train with problem passengers when their ride costs $5 out of pocket with subsidies, but not when they pay the full cost of $10.
Relying on user fees to fund BART operations means exposing riders to the true cost of the service and allowing them to decide whether BART provides value commensurate with those costs. It would force BART to provide clean and safe operations, mobilize resources in favor of routes that are in greater demand, and meet customer expectations of timeliness and reliability; otherwise, it would lose its revenue source and ability to operate. User-based revenue would force BART to more closely mimic a private-market business model and assume a greater level of accountability than it currently does.
Furthermore, ending subsidies to BART would save taxpayers millions of dollars each year that could otherwise be directed toward more productive economic activity than overcompensating BART employees for poor service. Lower sales and property taxes, for example, would keep more money in the hands of Bay Area residents to spend on growing their local economies. In contrast, empirical studies consistently show that greater taxation hurts economic growth. Thus, maintaining BARTs reliance on tax revenue is harmful to the economy.
2. Sell BART to a private for-profit entity.
Requiring BART to operate without subsidies would improve service for passengers compared to the status quo. But a better alternative is to sell the transit system to private stewards. This would force BART to operate under market pressures that favor innovation, cost cutting, improved performance, and greater value-added services for its customers.
There are examples of more successful and better rated rail systems operated by for-profit companies. For example, Hong Kongs MTR, which is run by a private publicly traded corporation, is often touted as a model of self-sustainability. One news outlet calls it the worlds most envied metro system. The MTR relies on no government subsidies, makes profits from its property developments, and boasts an on-time rate of nearly 100 percent. MTR fare box collections routinely exceed 100 percent of operating costs.
In Japan, the privately operated Tokyo Metro is widely recognized as more efficient and punctual than its state-run counterpart, the Toei Subway, which has historically operated at a financial loss.
A common objection to private for-profit provision of transit services is that low-income people cannot afford a private system. In reality, Hong Kongs MTR fares are typically lower than BARTs fares. For example, the fare is $0.52 to travel a few stops on MTR. The fare is $2.10 to go from the Embarcadero to Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco, a few stops on BART. Residual claimants to any profits put pressure on for-profit transit systems to properly manage costs and to innovate for greater efficiency. The days of paying BART janitors hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit in closets would be over.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that full privatization of bus transit in the United States would cut operating costs by about 30 percent, without a loss in service quality. As the researchers explained, Our findings are consistent with private enterprises operating at a lower cost and higher efficiency relative to their public counterparts. Private entities hire fewer workers and engage in less featherbedding relative to public transit agencies. In addition to improving quality, therefore, privatizing mass transit lowers operating costs.
Importantly, a large portion of the savings comes from a disconnect between unionized transit employees and the transit authority responsible for budgeting and planning. In other words, private transit companies do not suffer from a conflict of interest inherent in contract negotiations between publicly owned transit operators and public sector unions. Private ownership results in fairer labor agreements and lower operating costs.
If BART were a for-profit company, it could also more easily expand its portfolio of services, thereby diversifying its revenue sources. Why must a subway system only operate subways? For example, BART could have its own fleet of ride-share taxis, shuttle vans, shuttle buses, and ferries that could feed passengers to its stations (more on those transportation options below). It could sell naming licenses for its stations and train cars.
The incentives associated with private for-profit ownership of BART would force it to tighten its belt, spend on features that customers prioritize such as safety and cleanliness, and become more efficient through innovation. Private ownership would also allow BART to better diversify its revenue sources. Over time, BART would provide higher-quality service at lower cost than it currently provides to its passengers.
3. Allow transportation alternatives, new and old, to flourish and compete vigorously against BART.
Vigorous competition among mobility options would pressure BART to provide higher quality service at competitive prices. Transportation services aided by new technology are one source of competition. Recent innovations in on-demand ride share and private bus services provide more flexibility and efficiency than BART.
Ride share and private buses have an established history in the San Francisco Bay Area. Uber, for example, launched its service first in San Francisco in 2010 as a smartphone-based platform to connect drivers and ride seekers in a more convenient and transparent way than traditional taxis. And a system of private employer-sponsored shuttle buses, catering to commutes for employees in various locations, have proliferated in the Bay Area during the past decade. Today there are hundreds of shuttle vehicles. More express lanes on Bay Area freeways with variable peak-load pricing would reduce congestion and travel times, while also reducing air pollution as fewer vehicles sit in traffic.
Futurists, such as Elon Musk and Richard Branson, also envision vehicles zooming along in underground highways and people riding in high-speed hyperloops. Proof-of-technology research is far along. Over time, those innovations and others could make BART an uncompetitive relic or even obsolete.
Private ride-share automobiles and buses are more capable of meeting the demands of riders with their decentralized structure and flexible routes and times. Traditional mass transit, with its set routes, frequent stops, and scheduled pickup times offers less convenience for customers and less access to jobs compared to automobiles. The efficiency of ride sharing makes it a more cost-effective alternative to buses and trains. As a comparison, per passenger mile, transit costs more than four times as much as automobiles, on average.
That was the realization of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), which decided to end an unpopular bus route in west Dublin, California, that was costing taxpayers $15 per ride, in favor of subsidizing the use of Uber and Lyft, a move that saved money. The program, which was piloted in 2016, is still in effect for rides within Dublin. In addition to regular on-demand private rides, both Uber and Lyft offer pooled-ride options that enable multiple passengers riding similar routes to share a vehicle and cut costs even more.
When given the option to use ride share, many Bay Area residents demonstrate a clear preference for it over BART. In 2014, when Uber and Lyft were finally allowed to fulfill trips to and from San Francisco International Airport (SFO), BART ridership dropped significantly on the SFO line. According to Carter Mau, executive manager of BARTs office of planning and budget, competition from the private ride-share companies led to a nearly 10 percent revenue hit on that line in 2016, as Uber and Lyft saw a near sixfold increase in ridership in the two years after 2014.
Similarly, BARTs ColiseumOakland International Airport line suffered almost immediately after it began operations in November 2014 due to lower-than-expected ridership, as travelers opted for ride-share alternatives. This resulted in an $860,000 net loss in its first two years, rather than the $2 million net profit BART anticipated.
One mobility advantage that the Bay Area has is the large bodies of navigable water in the middle of the regionthe San Francisco Bay to the south and the San Pablo Bay to the north. The area once had a thriving ferry industry, beginning in 1850, which provided service around the region. At the industrys peak in 1935 and 1936, 50 to 60 million people crossed the San Francisco Bay each year on almost 50 ferries, with 250,000 people passing through San Franciscos Ferry Building each day. A series of state laws put all Bay Area ferries out of business by 1958. Today the industry is a shadow of its past glory.
Ferry service, water buses, and water taxis should be allowed to flourish by removing government obstacles to starting and operating private service wherever customer demand will support it. And for those who can afford a pricier option, seaplane taxis are another alternative that should be unleashed. For the more adventurous traveler, flying taxis could one day be the next big thing in urban mobility. Airbus, one of the worlds largest airframe manufacturers, recently announced that it has entered the electric air taxi race. Mobility options that create more competition will improve BARTs service because it would have to innovate to maintain and grow its customer base and its revenues.
Regulations driven by environmental groups and NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) groups have made it nearly impossible to build affordable housing in California. Thus, home prices in the Golden State continue to set new records. If regulatory impediments were relaxed or dismantled, new housing could be built where people want it. More housing close to jobs would make walking and biking more attractive options for many people, thereby creating substitutes for longer BART rides. E-scooters, bike sharing, and other forms of micromobility are already popular options in the Bay Area. For example, nearly 100,000 people have unique accounts with powered scooter companies offering service in San Francisco. (To learn more about barriers to housing development in California and key solutions, read the Independent Institute report How to Restore the California Dream: Removing Obstacles to Fast and Affordable Housing Development.)
Improving the transportation experience for Bay Area residents means allowing vigorous competition to emerge organically among private approaches to mobilityboth new and old technology. If BART finds it difficult to compete now, it will have a much bigger hurdle once driverless ride-share fleets, some pooled or operating in congestion-priced express lanes, become widely available. This could happen soon based on recent headlines: Hyundai Motor Unveils IONIQ5 Robot Taxi to Be Run in 2023 and Aurora Unveils Autonomous Toyota Sienna for Ride-Hailing with Uber.
4. Put the brakes on BART expansions.
BART passengers want safe, clean, on-time transportation at competitive prices. But what do politicians want? Typically, politicians want ribbon-cutting ceremonies for visible new assets, such as stations and lines. These long-term capital expansions allow politicians to have photo opportunities with the media and to take credit for the projects from inception to opening to operations for decades, boosting their name-brand capital among voters and the public more broadly.
There are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies, however, for repairing track or doing other day-to-day basic maintenance of facilities and equipment. Thus, BART has deferred much of this needed work, creating looming safety hazards and reliability problems. BARTs own modeling concludes, The share of [BARTs] assets in poor and very poor condition is expected to increase by 90 percent by 2030. Despite the need for critical maintenance and repairs, BARTs massive expansion plans move forward, even in the face of demand uncertainties.
A reality of the modern economy is that remote work, or telecommuting, is increasingly common, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. And given that remote work obviates the necessity for a traditional daily commute, BART and other transportation systems will increasingly find themselves less necessary. BART should adapt by eliminating less-popular routes and reconsidering plans for grand multibillion-dollar expansions.
Before COVID-19, California had the largest number of remote workers in the country, and the Bay Area boasted the highest number of workers eligible to work remotely in all of California, nearly 1.8 million. According to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, up to 45 percent of Bay Area jobs were eligible for remote work. This includes more than half of all jobs in San Francisco and Santa Clara.
COVID-19 made remote work even more acceptable and more widely available going forward for Bay Area workers. It has reduced demand for BART services and made future demand highly uncertain. Many companies, especially in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, have signaled a commitment to remote first or a hybrid alternative allowing for both in-office and work from home. Those companies include Adobe, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Quora, Reddit, Salesforce, Slack, and Twitter, among others.
Salesforce announced that its 9-to-5 workday is dead. Twitter announced, [I]f our employees are in a role and situation that enables them to work from home and they want to continue to do so forever, we will make that happen. And other companies are following in that direction after figuring out the logistics of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
BART has ignored the implications of this social and economic sea change, instead expanding connections to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. With fewer workers commuting to San Francisco or even living in the Bay Area, the need for BARTs current transbay tube, not to mention a second tube, should lessen significantly. And research demonstrates that the hub and spoke nature of most public transit systems, including BART, make transit economically viable only when jobs concentrated downtown are thriving.
BART has ignored the remote work trend and, instead, continues planning for the completion of a second underwater transbay tube crossing by 2040 linking Oakland and San Francisco, as well as plans to connect San Francisco with Silicon Valley and Sacramento. The second tube alone would cost an estimated $29 billion, and currently lacks a funding source. BART is also currently designing a six-mile $6.9 billion expansion in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to connect Bay Area residents with Silicon Valley jobs via San Jose and Santa Clara. Those plans, which have been decades in the making, fail to recognize todays reality, much less the need 10 or 20 years in the future. As mentioned previously, entrepreneurs are rapidly developing futuristic transportation technology that could render BART obsolete.
The expansion of BART to accommodate a presumed growing work-commute need is wrongheaded. Studies demonstrate that increases in remote work can reduce traffic congestion at peak times, improve overall traffic flow, reduce energy consumption, improve air quality and reduce the need to spend on public transportation (see, for example, here and here). This is the emerging trend in the San Francisco Bay Area and signals a wider social change that transforms the need for traditional commutes and strategies to deal with it through conventional mass transit. Rather than embark on massive expansions in the face of declining commutes and promising new technologies, BART should focus on improving the performance of its current system and performing proper maintenancefix it first.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, which serves the San Francisco Bay Area, has received the California Golden Fleece® Award because of its excessive employee compensation, reckless financial mismanagement, poor on-time performance, unsanitary conditions, and failure to prevent the system from becoming a magnet for criminals. Based on its own metrics and performance standards, BART has failed on every count.
Government subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, shield BART from the need to become customer focused and more efficient through innovation and belt tightening. It took BART about 50 years to install a more efficient train control computer system. And the initial roll out was plagued by software glitches. A lack of a profit motive has allowed BART to squander revenue on excessive pay and benefits, rather than spending money on the features that matter most to customers. Fixing crime and grime problems would bring riders back and increase revenue.
BART should not be permitted to continue failing Bay Area residents. Fundamental reforms are needed: (1) end all government subsidies to BART, (2) sell BART to a private for-profit entity, (3) allow vigorous competition among transportation alternatives, and (4) fix BART first and scrap grand expansion plans costing tens of billions of dollars. These projects are unlikely to be economically viable in the future given the trend toward greater telecommuting and the ongoing development of promising new transportation technology.
Hong Kong and Tokyo provide more successful approaches. Both cities have private for-profit subway systems that are clean, safe, and reliable, with near-perfect on-time arrivals. Fares, which are not subsidized by the government, are typically lower than BARTs fares because of greater efficiency.
Those reforms would impose market discipline on BART, which has been lacking for too long. Robust competition, a profit motive, and innovative customer-based revenue would improve service delivery while keeping costs manageable and revenues healthy. The reforms would mobilize the expertise and resources of the private sector, reduce taxpayer risk, increase efficiency, and lower fares while improving service. BART would be one part of a competitive transportation environment in the Bay Area featuring robust ride share, shuttle vans, shuttle buses, ferries, water taxis, water buses, seaplanes, new futuristic alternatives, and old-fashioned walking and biking. Congestion pricing of express lanes throughout the Bay Area would help alleviate gridlock and air pollution.
These changes will not be easy to implement because BART is a large bureaucracy influenced by interest groups that benefit from maintaining the status quo, primarily labor unions and officials at multiple levels of government. Change will require acknowledgment of the problems discussed in this report, a vision for BART and transportation more broadly that puts competition and customers first, and the political will to implement the reforms detailed here.
If these changes are implemented, BART would provide high-quality service to its riders at competitive prices and finally fulfill its mission, which began nearly 50 years ago.


text:
Romantic relationships are the ones that involve the love between two people who definitely have thought i would get married. They may be a good option if you want to have a long-lasting relationship with someone and have the same desired goals as them.
Romanticism is a normal part of a relationship, and a lot couples may have some measure of it within their marriages. Nevertheless , you must not expect the marriage to become filled with charming love for the rest of your lives.
A Romantic Relationship Starts With Goodness
Often , if a couple gets married, they anticipate their fresh union for being full of ambiance and all the other fun items that happens within a healthy appreciate relationship. Although it’s essential to recollect that every romance has it is personal unique persona and a proper one does not maintain its allure forever.
The best way to maintain your marriage full of love should be to work at this. Keeping the ignite alive isn’t always easy, but several tips that will help keep it solid:
1 . Generate Romance A consistent Part of The Relationship
Many couples believe it is hard to stay in touch with their particular spouses, specifically during times once both of them have busy activities. Rather than just verifying in in your partner once you’re away from home, try finding the time to program special time nights and thoughtful tiny gestures that will entertain partner how much they mean to you.
2 . Boost the comfort and Open With Your Partner
When you’re married, you’ll get acquainted with your partner very well because of the length of time that they spend with you plus the fact that they may be https://egil.fr/2021/02/07/the-actual-purpose-of-getting-together-with-thai-brides-to-be-online/ in your life. This will help you avoid virtually any misunderstandings and be better outfitted to talk using your partner.
3. Choose a Relationship a secure Haven
When ever couples get married, they build a bond which could protect them against life’s troubles. They can be presently there for each other and help each other grow, if it’s through tough times or perhaps good kinds.
4. Come out when You Need It
Occasionally couples result in stressful situations beautiful russian mail order bride or simply in psychological turmoil and can’t handle all of it. Instead of planning to deal with all this by themselves, they may need to go into a counselor to talk about their thoughts.
some. Have a Reset and Get Back Together
Is considered also important to be truthful with your partner and have all of them take a break from other daily lives. This will help them to process their emotions and also deal with them in a healthier method.
6. Be described as a Consistent Support System
It might be hard to trust your partner when they reach a bad place, but it’s crucial with regards to both of you to possess a consistent support system. This will help them to recover from any traumatic incidents they might have become through and provide you with a chance to generate the relationship back up again.

domain: psychology


Popular UK-based Ghanaian dancehall artiste Akata Stone will release his much-anticipated hit song titled ‘Bossu’ on Friday 17 August ,2018.
‘Bossu,’recorded by Eddy K and Mixed by Dr Ray Beatz features Swedru-based hiplife superstar Patapaa and Uk-based artist Anda Rida.
Though the song is yet to be out, information gathered by Razzonline.com indicates that it’s one of the most controversial songs to be produced in the music industry.
The source further hinted that, Patapaa who many have referred to as a noise maker, did extremely well on the song and likely to be the ‘One Corner’ hitmaker’s best ever collaborated song.
Under the production of Carter Music,Akata Stone who started his music career in 2004 is well noted with the hit song ‘Maame Hwe remix and ‘Taking Over Remix. He is actually regarded as the most popular UK-based Ghanaian dancehall artiste’
Click Here Join Our Telegram Group To Receive Updates
-- You Might Also Like --
- Shatta Wale – Compaign (Prod By Paq)
- Ms Arthur – Pay Me (Prod. By Chapter Beatz)
- Kaakyire Kwame Appiah – Dumsor Bronya (Official Video)
- Fameye – Nothing I Get (Remix) ft Article Wan, Kuami Eugene & Medikal (Prod by Liquidbeatz)
- Kasa Tintin – Yi Wenua Feat. Singlet (Prod. By Willisbeatz)
- Luther – Girls Of Today (Prod. by Jay Twist)
- Phyno ft Wale – N.W.A (Prod. By Iambeat)
- King Ross – Menyankopon (Ft. Lazzy Beatz x Changes)
- Harmonize – Anajikosha (Prod. By Daxo Chali)
- Mr. J – I Go Die (Prod. By MrJDeedew)


text:
Editor’s Note: New details about these variants are emerging as researchers continue to learn more. While we aim to update this article as soon as new information becomes available, please check the CDC website for the latest details about variants in the United States.
November 2021 saw the emergence of a new variant, the Omicron variant, emerge in South Africa and quickly spread. The variant was first detected in the United States a month later, and became the dominant variant within a matter of weeks. The high degree of contagiousness brought on a surge that came on fast and subsided a few months later. Now talk of the BA.2 variant, a sub-variant of the Omicron strain, has folks wondering if the case lull that we’re currently experiencing is just another brief moment of relief.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chief White House Medical Adviser, said on March 20th that he expects to see an uptick in cases but is hopeful that we won’t see another surge. Still, on March 29th the CDC made a recommendation that individuals 50 years and older and certain immunocompromised individuals, who had received their booster shot more than four months ago, get a fourth mRNA booster shot.
What Are the Current Variants Affecting the United States?
BA.2, or Omicron sub-variant– on March 26th, the CDC released data showing that this variant had become the dominant variant in the United States, overtaking the initial Omicron sub-variant. It appears to be slightly more contagious than BA.1 and breakthrough cases are expected at a greater rate, as this variant appears to evade immunity better than its counterpart. A large study out of Denmark suggests that reinfection from BA.2 after a covid infection from BA.1 is rare. Instances of re-infection most often occurred in young, unvaccinated individuals who had had mild cases, so if you are vaccinated and recently recovered, you can rest a little easier. However, this variant doesn’t appear to cause more severe infection, so an increase in breakthrough cases isn’t expected to lead to an increase in hospitalizations and deaths in vaccinated and boosted individuals.
It’s important to note that this isn’t really a new variant. The BA.2 variant was identified at the same time as the original omicron variant— you can think of them like sisters— it just wasn’t causing the majority of cases until now. The label “Omicron” is an umbrella term that encompasses several sub-variants, including BA.2, BA.1.1, and B.1.1, both of which we just called Omicron until recently.
BA.1 and B.1.1.529, or Omicron – As mentioned above, these two variants have been grouped under the term Omicron since November 2021. These two variants currently account for 47% of cases in the United States. Experts discovered that booster shots are incredibly effective at reducing Omicron’s virulence. As such, health officials encourage everyone to receive a third shot of the Pfizer vaccine as soon as they are able to.
B.1.617.2, or Delta – As of early March, data from the CDC indicates that Delta is no longer contributing to case counts within the United States.
Our Current Vaccines Are Still Effective
With the Omicron variant, we saw a rise in breakthrough infections. It can be useful to understand that this term is a bit of a misnomer, as vaccines were always intended to protect against severe hospitalization and death, not necessarily illness, and by that metric vaccines have remained highly effective against multiple variants. Still, the potential impacts of illness— including the ability to spread the disease to more vulnerable loved ones and the unknown effects of long-covid— have many vaccinated individuals feeling nervous about potential exposure and breakthrough cases.
Studies suggest that BA.2 is as good at evading vaccine immunity as its counterpart variants are, but vaccines are still protective against illness, and the risk of getting sick is still significantly greater for unvaccinated individuals. Vaccines have also been demonstrated to reduce transmissibility of BA.2. In a study of Omicron-related covid cases in Danish households, researchers found that unvaccinated people were far more likely to spread BA.2 to their housemates than if they had BA.1. However, vaccinated individuals with BA.2 were less likely to get their housemates sick than vaccinated individuals with BA.1. This is all to say that vaccinations help to protect yourself and others, and in the case of BA.2 getting vaccinated for the people around you is an even more effective choice.
Masking, Testing, Vaccinating, and Common Sense Remain Important
Although the variants seem to be more transmissible, one thing health experts are confident about is that these mutated forms still spread in the same way that all coronaviruses transfer from person to person. When someone who has the virus coughs, sneezes, talks, or exhales they release respiratory droplets containing the virus into the air. These small droplets can land in the mouths, eyes, or noses of people nearby, who then contract the virus. In many places, mask mandates are being lifted. But masking is always a tool at your disposal that is highly effective at protecting you from infection, and many are choosing to keep wearing masks in certain settings.
In early 2020 cloth masks were recommended for the public, both because they helped alleviate shortages of approved masks for healthcare workers, and because they were effective at reducing spread. Supply of high quality masks and respirators is no longer a pressing issue, and research has indicated that cloth masks do not provide sufficient protection against Omicron. As such, masking recommendations have changed, and respirators such as N95s, KN95s, and KF94s are now recommended. The CDC has created a tool to help individuals identify locations near to them that offer free respirators. You can also use the CDC’s website to track covid case numbers by county and get masking recommendations based on local case count.
In addition to masking, don’t forget basic practices to prevent illness and spread, such as hand-washing, testing before and after high-risk events like family gatherings, and staying home when you feel sick.
Keeping Track of Emerging Variants
The World Health Organization (WHO) is constantly tracking new variants. Variants of concern refer to variants that are currently impacting public health. These are any variant that is more transmissible, causes more severe illness, or reduces the efficacy of public health measures. Currently Omicron and Delta variants are listed as variants of concern. Additionally, the WHO also tracks variants of interest— variants with mutations likely to cause increased transmissibility or severity. At the time that this article was written, there were no variants of interest. Additionally, not all variants of interest become variants of concern, but if you’re someone who likes to stay on top of what might be developing, you can use the WHO’s covid tracking website to stay up to date.
Why Are These Variants Emerging?
COVID-19 continues to spread in the United States even as more people become vaccinated, and this unrestrained transmission is a primary contributing factor for the emergence of new variants. According to Dr. Ben Bimber, a research professor at Oregon Health and Science University, each time the virus has an opportunity to replicate — the process it undergoes when it enters a new host and begins infecting cells — it also has an opportunity to mutate.
This increased likelihood of mutations corresponding with the surge of cases across the U.S. highlights the importance of working to slow person-to-person COVID-19 transmission. “The only way to stop the emergence of new variants is to stop the spread of the virus,” Dr. Bimber told NBC News. “If there are more people infected, there’s simply more virus out there and it has more opportunities to mutate.”
But it can take several months to identify variants and determine if they’re causing surges. This time frame, coupled with the unknown and potentially harmful ways mutations could alter the virus, is worrisome. Fortunately, according to Dr. Dan Jones of Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, there’s a clear pathway to preventing variants from spreading and keeping new variants from surfacing: getting vaccinated.

domain: health


Updated: 08/31/2020 with the aid cell phones of Computer Hope
Many of the tasks handled by a pc may also be done on a telephone or tablet. For a contrast, the computing electricity of a flagship cellphone usually rivals many laptops and computer computers from approximately five years in the past.
If you’re figuring out whether your next tool upgrade ought to be a computer pc or a cell device, there are some key points to recollect. Below is a chart that highlights a number of the differences and similarities of every.TopicComputerSmartphone/TabletPowerIf you want high overall performance, the CPU cell phones uses numerous energy. The TDP of a powerful computer pc can variety from 450 to 850 watts, or greater. That’s why excessive-performance computer systems use a popular wall plug. They additionally generate plenty of warmness, frequently requiring massive warmth sinks (passive cooling), or fanatics or liquid cooling (active).Smartphones and capsules run on batteries, which means they must use energy as effectively as feasible. It’s not feasible to offer the excessive, regular power to a device’s CPU from one of these small battery. Consequently, the most recent cellphone will now not give you as a good deal power as a excessive-cease computer laptop. cell phones Mobile devices have become extra effective each month, however conventional computer systems constantly have the performance area, due to constant access to greater electricity.CostPrices for a pc can vary extensively relying on its abilities, storage, and capabilities. A mid-variety laptop generally costs among $500 and $800, and some of that fee can be offset in case you already personal peripherals, which includes a display, keyboard, and mouse. More powerful computers will fee between $1000 and $2000, or greater.The price of a smartphone can be financed monthly as part of a service plan from vendors, which include Verizon or AT&T. Refurbished smartphones can be purchased on an e-trade website online like eBay or Amazon for $one hundred-$three hundred. However, new flagship smartphones can cost as a whole lot as $1300. Tablets, relying on length, generally fee among $200 and $600.Screen sizeDesktop computers can connect to a wide form of video display units, allowing you to make investments as a good deal or as low as you need into that element. Most current laptop monitors are LCDs. Depending on their length, quality, and functions, they typically price among $a hundred and $500 (although a few can cost a great deal more).Smartphone screens range really depending on the producer and version. However, they always be smaller than a computer or laptop as they usually range among 4 and seven inches.PortabilityWhile pc computers are generally mild and transportable through layout, they can not compete with smartphones on this regard.Smartphones are light-weight and may fit in a purse or pocket. They are designed to be taken anywhere with you — the very definition of portability. A pill may not suit into your pocket, however they are mild and you may carry them in one hand.StorageConsumer difficult force capacities already exceed many TB (terabytes) and they retain to growth in size. Today, even the maximum fundamental computer comes with a 250 GB (gigabyte). This applies to each computing device and pc computer systems. However, some netbooks, together with the Google Chromebook that is designed often for operating inside a web browser, best offer sixteen or 32 GB of space.Most smartphones and pills come with among 16 GB and 128 GB of built-in garage. In a few cases, an growth slot may be to be had for a further memory chip presenting removable storage. Smartphones and capsules have less storage capacity than a laptop, and their components can not be changed like a desktop computer’s can.SoftwareDesktop and pc computers can run extra powerful software than a telephone or tablet because of their length, additives, and much less restrictive power necessities.While smartphones and capsules are getting more effective every 12 months, they nevertheless can not healthy a traditional laptop or desktop computer in phrases of performance.Internet ConnectivityDesktop computers typically include Ethernet capability, both on the motherboard or a discrete NIC. Most desktop computer systems require a peripheral device, which include a USB Wi-Fi adapter, to connect to wi-fi networks. Most laptops consist of both Wi-Fi and Ethernet networking as a popular feature.Smartphones and pills can hook up with Wi-Fi networks for Internet get admission to. Also, smartphones can connect with a cellular records community; many capsules offer mobile statistics connectivity as nicely. Mobile information, but, comes at a top class and can be an awful lot greater expensive than a widespread broadband connection.Operating systemOperating structures designed for computers and laptops are full-featured. They are designed to take gain of fast CPUs, big amounts of disk area, and excessive amounts of RAM. Also, they make use of the capabilities of present day chipsets that aren’t to be had on maximum cell devices.Mobile working systems (Android and iOS) are specialized for a specific set of devices. By default, they don’t provide you entire get right of entry to on your device hardware (Administrator or “root” get entry to). They also have stricter hardware requirements due to the fact the surroundings of mobile apps and gadgets is strongly connected to specific hardware features. In different words, you can’t run the most modern apps on an older cell OS, and the newest mobile OS might not run on a extensively older tool.Data Entry and user inputA laptop makes use of a keyboard and mouse for input, which maximum users select primarily based familiarity and their cushty sizing.Smartphones characteristic an on-display screen contact keyboard this is an awful lot smaller than that of a fashionable laptop. The smaller keyboard can make typing more difficult for users, specifically the ones who’ve huge hands.
Most users nowadays have both a phone and a pc of their home. They use a cellphone for cellphone calls, messaging, surfing the Internet, reading e mail, and other small jobs and use a computer for greater complicated tasks or work. If you cannot decide among a smartphone or a computer, consider getting a tablet or a hybrid pc.