So you think it's good government to have the less affluent
who can't afford the train subsidize the more affluent (and
largely white) who find the train affordable and convenient?

It's their numbers. Taxpayer subsidy per rider is over $50.
Golden Gate Transit buses are $17 / rider.

This is good gov't policy?

There are trains in many metro areas in the US. They
work best when serving a high density employment district
(NYC, SF, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc.) . This train
serves only suburban stations.

Ridership is low because commuters can't walk to their jobs.

There's nothing that's going to change this result for the
next several decades. (No one can predict after that.)

Let's all agree SMART is completely mismanaged. Staff is overpaid.
They running too many trains which they can ill afford for political
rather than operational purposes. And don't get me started on
the Board. Who are these people? Draining financial reserves
to fund the red ink is not a viable policy nor is it prudent.
But that's what they're doing.

Losing this election -- which is likely now that a deep pocket
has arrived -- is their only chance to become accountable to
the taxpayers funding them. I can't see any other way.

What idiot thought that issuing debt with a debt service structure
that rose much faster than their tax base was a good idea? (Answer:
Farhad Mansourian) It's now taking according to SMART 42% of their
sales tax revenues and expected to take more before the bonds
mature.

The agency is need of a major spanking from the voters.