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... jlhughes William Burg comment-11206 2009-07-27T22:06:56Z 2009-07-27T22:06:56Z 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. William Burg 2009-07-27T22:06:56Z Ben Ilfeld comment-11185 2009-07-26T16:28:26Z 2009-07-26T16:28:26Z 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? Ben Ilfeld 2009-07-26T16:28:26Z William Burg comment-11180 2009-07-25T03:32:20Z 2009-07-25T03:32:20Z 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. William Burg 2009-07-25T03:32:20Z Bill Albertson comment-11157 2009-07-24T23:37:08Z 2009-07-24T23:37:08Z 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). Bill Albertson 2009-07-24T23:37:08Z William Burg comment-11141 2009-07-24T00:14:17Z 2009-07-24T00:14:17Z 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. William Burg 2009-07-24T00:14:17Z Bill Albertson comment-11140 2009-07-23T21:38:11Z 2009-07-23T21:38:11Z 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? Bill Albertson 2009-07-23T21:38:11Z