STORYLINE transit choice

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

From bad to worse for RT finances

by John Hughes, published on July 23, 2009 at 12:58PM

Storyline: transit choice

No high resolution image exists...

Loading images

What's Sacramento Regional Transit to do? There's just no good news. That at least is the conclusion to be drawn from the agenda package for Monday's board of director's meeting.

General Manger Mike Wiley tries to paint a rosy tint on his Key Performance Report to the board.

"Despite the economic challenges imposed by declining tax revenues and state budget cuts to public transit funding, the District's financial statistic report closing out fiscal year 2009 is positive ($6.6M*)," Wiley says.

Yes, but...

Take away the largess of the Obama administration and Congress' efforts to stimulate the economy -- $8 million more than RT had counted on in its budget -- and that $6.6 million evaporates. (Read the full Key Performance Report)

As it is, the preliminary year-end report for 2009 has the district less than $700,000 in the black.

The district management managed to save nearly $2.2 million by trimming expenses from the 2009 budget and the federal government tossed in nearly $7.5 million more than the budget anticipated, but that only slowed the hemorrhaging.

Despite rate hikes in January, fare revenues were down $4.25 million below the budgeted target. And then there was the $4.1 million loss of local sales tax revenue.

And now we learn that matters are getting worse.

The 2010 budget adopted last month was balanced in part with the promise that service would be cut in January enough to save another $1.1 million.

"Since the FY 2010 Operating Budget was adopted on June 22, 2009, economic conditions have worsened," RoseMary Covington, the assistant general manager for planning and transit system development, explains in an issue paper prepared for Monday's meeting.

"RT has been notified that the Sacramento Transportation Authority will reduce its FY 2010 sales tax based, Measure A, projection by 3%," Covington reports. "This will reduce expected RT revenue from this source by $932,000. In addition, SACOG staff has advised there will be a further reduction in RT's Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation of approximately $1.5 million, also due to the decline in expected sales tax revenue."

The district had hoped that recently adopted federal legislation allowing transit agencies to redirect 10 percent of their stimulus money to operating expenses would help, but that won't be enough.

"Current estimates indicate that in addition to the $1 million in January service cuts already factored into the FY 2010 Adopted Operating Budget, an additional $1.4 million must be found in order to re-balance the budget," Covington reports.

Covington anticipates that staff can back fill some of that $2.4 million shortfall with cost reductions, but at least $1.4 million in service reductions will still be necessary.

"Since January is half-way point of the fiscal year, in order to realize $1.4 million in savings, it is necessary to make service reductions amounting to $2.8 million on an annual basis," Covington explains.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with RT's efforts to cope with the economic downturn and the outright theft from the state, I suggest reading "Attachment 2" from Covington's report. "Sacramento Regional Transit District Actions To Meet State Budget Revenue Shortfalls" itemizes the more than 30 steps taken since 2008.

The question of which combination of route elimination, reduction and realignment will balance the budget will be the subject of discussion at Monday's meeting. Here's a link to the staff's preferred option.

"Based upon the public comments, further direction from the Board, and any changes to RT's funding situation, staff will return to the Board for final approval on August 24, 2009," Covington said.

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

July 23, 2009 | 02:38 PM
The staff's preferred option seems fair, if there is no other way of dealing with the shortfall. It bothers me that local governments haven't been able to step up to the plate to help an essential infrastructure service, but I know they are strapped as well.

I know that we seem to run a lot of empty busses during the day on certain routes- would smaller busses have been cheaper in the long run? Are there any other options that people know about?
0 0
REPLY
July 23, 2009 | 05:14 PM
The problem is that big buses are needed for peak hours, and are more cost-efficient when full than smaller buses. Light rail is more cost-effective still, during rush hours.

The lesson is always the same: You get what you pay for. We don't want to pay for a properly funded transit system, so we get one that is rudimentary at best. We pay far less for our transit system than Los Angels or San Francisco--and so we have far less of a transit system than Los Angeles or San Francisco. It's just that simple.
0 0
REPLY
July 24, 2009 | 04:37 PM
No, I agree. I am not saying we should pay less, or that cutting is acceptable in my book. But this city historically has not put a great deal of emphasis on funding infrastructure when it comes down to making hard choices, and I am not expecting any new changes in behavior on the part of regional governnments that are supposed to support RT.

My question about running smaller busses is that during the day, outside of rush hour, relates to these busses are usually running empty or nearly so.

Personally, I think that the city should raise some tax to fund transit, but people already whinge on about how horrible the existing city tax is on business. I know my business had to pay $35 dollars this year for a tax permit... I'm sure others must be facing the poorhouse in order to deal with such burdens. However, I would be HAPPY to double my business tax if that meant I could use the bus more often and my family wouldn't be shelling out $350 a month in passes (two adults and a child).
0 0
REPLY
July 24, 2009 | 08:32 PM
Having one bus for peak hours and one bus for off hours means that you still have to buy two buses, have two sets of repair parts, maintenance schedules, parking spaces, etcetera. The minor savings for using slightly less fuel in the smaller bus gets eaten up pretty quickly.

Infrastructure isn't the problem--there is actually a lot of money for infrastructure, in the form of building stations, routes, and facilities. The problem is operations money, funds to pay for drivers and fuel/electricity and maintenance. Transit funding that pays for operation is a combination of city, county and state funds--part of the cutbacks in service has been because the state pulled a lot of transit money. It isn't just a city issue, because RT serves more than just the city of Sacramento.

We pay about a third what San Francisco pays per sales tax dollar on public transit, and about a sixth what Los Angeles County pays. So yes, even though people are constantly upset about taxes (and would still be upset about them no matter how high or low they were) you are right in that we really should buck up and pay for a proper transit system that can serve more people, more often.
0 0
REPLY
July 26, 2009 | 09:28 AM
I am interested to know if the loss in fare revenue had been predicted when rate hikes were proposed.

What economic analysis led to the rate hikes? Who did this research? Could an argument be made that lower rates would lead to higher ridership and more fare revenue?
0 0
REPLY
July 27, 2009 | 03:06 PM
The problem is that the recovery rate is currently only about 25%: for every 25 cents RT gains at the farebox, they have to spend 75 cents received from state, county and city transit funds. Reducing fares doesn't help, because even though ridership might go up, that increased ridership costs more. Reducing fares means reducing the farebox recovery rate, thus increasing the need for external funding--and it is the external funding that is the crux of the problem. RT can't spend money it does not have.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
TYPE YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW
EDIT YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW cancel edit

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Forgot Password?
New Users Create an Account Here
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com