According to published data in the National Transit Database, there are significant differences in the proportion of operating costs paid by fares. Farebox recovery is one such measure. Taxpayer subsidy per boarding is another.

In the SF Bay Area, the regional transit planners are beginning the process for passing a regionwide tax to bailout the big transit operators in the Bay Area (BART, MUNI, Caltrain, GGBHTD, and VTA) that are facing "fiscal cliffs" later this year or next as the $4.5B in federal bailout funds dry up.

There are plenty of tax dollars already funding transit throughout the nation and the Bay Area. There are special sales tax measures on every county's books in the region. Some have two (e.g., Marin and Sonoma both have 2 measures on the books). Every one of these measures has been approved by at least a 2/3 vote as required by Prop 13.

Raising taxes further will increase the subsidy per rider from current levels, which are still plenty high. But when the time comes, the proponents will claim if you don't pass this tax significant cuts in service will follow.

An obvious alternative of course is to raise fares. While this would reduce ridership, it would improve the operators' finances.

So, is there a "magic number" which proponents would say "that's excessive?"
As an example of how high these numbers are we can point to SMART where FY 2022 data says they spent $75 per boarding, not financed by fares.

All of the operators' subsidies increased substantially during the pandemic and have declined by not to 2019 levels.

So, what's the answer? Should the taxpayers pony up?