I mean, sure? I'd prefer to have a system that has a system built in that raises and lowers the level of service in accordance with the number of people using the system rather than having to have random elections that decide whether or not we're going to effectively scrape a large parts of the system.
I think there's two important things here:
1. You want to be forward looking, not backwards looking. Cutting services means less ridership means less revenue means cutting services means...etc. Bart is super useful for me during the week because headways from SF to West Oakland are often 5m. As I'm writing this (11 on a Friday) I missed a train and had to wait 20 minutes. Every seat on the car is also full, and while not packed, it's standing room only. If my choice is to wait 20 mins for the next train, other ways of getting places become a lot more appealing.
2. Government services should be good. This is good both because it makes people interested in using them (see 1) and because people who don't have other options deserve good services. The point of government is, at least in part, to serve those who can't serve themselves. I don't expect Bart to be revenue neutral for the same reason I don't expect CalFRESH to be.
> Cutting services means less ridership means less revenue means cutting services means...etc.
That's not true. If you have stations that are revenue positive and stations that are net negative, then cutting ridership at the net-negative stations can put the system in a much better financial position. E.g. If BART didn't end at Antioch, and instead continued to Rio Vista, it's entirely likely that the Rio Vista station would just cost more to operate than is worth operating. It takes time to go back and forth, nobody will ever want to be picked up there because it's car-dependent sprawl. Maybe have one or two stops there during rush hour, but you'll likely be better financially cutting most service.
>headways from SF to West Oakland are often 5m
Nobody is suggesting cutting service between SF and Oakland. I'm sure it's a wildly profitable route. Crossing the bay is the main benefit of BART.
>The point of government is, at least in part, to serve those who can't serve themselves. I don't expect Bart to be revenue neutral for the same reason I don't expect CalFRESH to be.
I also don't expect BART to be revenue neutral. I expect it to be funded -- in very large part -- by taxes. I'm only arguing it should be sustainable. It shouldn't get to the point of literal collapse during economic downturns (again, it's already been bailed out by the state and feds, twice, in the last six years).
I really don't think people realize what I'm getting at. I'm saying the system needs to be functional and needs to function long term. Yes, I think we should subsidize low-income users. Yes, I think people who can't afford it should still be able to use it. But that has to happen in a way that doesn't drive away significant numbers of other users. There's nothing about being low-income that means anti-social. I'm talking about anti-social behavior. I'm talking about people smoking cigarettes and using drugs on BART platforms and in BART cars. I'm talking about people who are actively bothering significant numbers of people around them by their behavior -- behavior that is against BART policy, but is tolerated.
You can't sit here and tell me the current system is working when BART is perpetually collapsing. I care about BART. That's why I'm articulating the systemic problems in the system.