The Sacramento Regional Transit District is reducing its fares for the first time in its history. It says it is doing this to “give back to the community.” But the Antiplanner can’t help but think that fare reductions might have more to do with the 40 percent decline in ridership the district has experienced since 2008.
At least it isn’t responding to revenue declines by increasing fares. Oh, wait: it already did. Between 2008 and 2016, average bus fares grew by 38 percent and average light-rail fares grew by 17 percent, which probably contributed to but were not the primary cause of declining ridership.
The agency says it can decrease fares now because of the success it has had in controlling costs in the last couple of years, as evidenced by the fact that it has $10 million in the bank as a “reserve.” But why did it wait until the last couple of years to control its costs? Why hasn’t it been controlling its costs since it was created in 1973?
From the aforesaid details, it is undoubtedly why sildenafil cipla 100mg is Sildenafil Citrate. For that, you buy cheap sildenafil are supposed to drop a mail to with the required quantity. cialis sale It is experienced by every man at some point in their life. Chronic tension, injury, spinal disc disease, and free viagra tablet http://www.slovak-republic.org/residence/ arthritis are among the common causes of cervicogenic headaches.
FTA data show that the agency did cut its operating expenses, at least for bus and light rail, but all of that cut was between 2008 and 2011. From 2011 to 2016, bus operating expenses grew by 18 percent and light-rail operating expenses grew by 34 percent. Overhead expenses bottomed out in 2010, but since then have grown by 6 percent for bus and 24 percent for light rail. So, if the agency has controlled its costs in the “last couple of years,” it must be in some other part of the system: possibly by simply not wasting money building more transit infrastructure.
This is yet another example of a transit agency putting a positive spin on its desperate measures to cope with declines in ridership that are completely beyond the agency’s control. I suspect we’re going to be seeing a lot of this in the future.
A going out of business sale
The primary emphasis behind California HSR was that the public transit systems in the metros would serve the people that took HSR to get there to begin with, car free. That reality hasn’t happened, BART in San Francisco is falling apart, they’ll need tens of billions to refurbish it, raising property taxes in order to do it. Los Angeles is building light rail to the tune of billions at the expense of slashing cheap bus service which has pissed off the populace that need a cheap means of transportation. It is not taking cars off the road as planned. The fact is, California’s supposed car free future will cost state and federal taxpayers close to 400 billion dollars by the 2040’s and close to a trillion in lifecycle costs. California has plenty of debts already and when the next generation of democratic politicians in California push for their grand endeavors they’ll inherit a financial disaster.
The real price of driving is $2+ per mile, but you teahadi’s have no problem with socialism when it comes to roads :$
The real price of driving is carrying your mom, gross tonnage……..
emphasis on the gross….
Sacramento bribes its region’s residents with their own money. Film at 11.
Come on, msetty lives relatively close by on a large, transit-less ranch owned by his sister, why no comment from him?
If Mr.Setty is doing so due to his sister’s health problems and he is helping her with her farming. Then he isn’t doing so by absolute choice.
I’d rather ride a tram than a bus, but Montreal’s trams got stolen in the 1950’s :$
There’s a reason why they call it “The American Dream”, because you have to asleep to believe it! – George Carlin