Altamont Press Discussion Board :: Discussion :: Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?

Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?

Author: BOB2

Date: 02-11-2023 - 10:11

Well LACMTA's contracted Metro Micro, which was supposed to "replace" "costly" bus service in MTA's massive service cuts in 2021 (which has lost 700,000 daily riders since 2014), are charging customers $1 for an estimated $55 to $75 fully allocated cost per ride, to replace an average bus rider per trip subsidy of around $2.50 pre Covid. Contracted services, of course... Or to paraphrase Lincoln: "Government of the contractors, by the contractors, and for the contractors, shall not persish...."

Heckuva a job Stephanie...

Kramer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

Navigate: Previous Message•Next Message

Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message

Subject	Written By	Date/Time (PST)
What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much?	Kramer	02-11-2023 - 07:52
Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?	BOB2	02-11-2023 - 10:11
Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?	david vartanoff	02-11-2023 - 12:12
Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?	r	02-11-2023 - 13:03
Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?	That Bus Guy	02-11-2023 - 17:38
Re: What Subsidy for Taking Transit is Too Much? Can anyone top the "ocst savings" achieved by LACMTA's "Metro Micro" subsidy savings?	cable car fares	02-11-2023 - 18:49

Go to: Message List•Search

Subject:
Your Name:

Help information:

BBcode help

Spam prevention:

Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.

 **    **  **     **        **  ********  **     ** 
  **  **   ***   ***        **  **        **     ** 
   ****    **** ****        **  **        **     ** 
    **     ** *** **        **  ******    **     ** 
    **     **     **  **    **  **        **     ** 
    **     **     **  **    **  **        **     ** 
    **     **     **   ******   **         *******

Enter code:

BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well LACMTA's contracted Metro Micro, which was
> supposed to "replace" "costly" bus service in
> MTA's massive service cuts in 2021 (which has lost
> 700,000 daily riders since 2014), are charging
> customers $1 for an estimated $55 to $75 fully
> allocated cost per ride, to replace an average bus
> rider per trip subsidy of around $2.50 pre Covid. 
> Contracted services, of course...  Or to
> paraphrase Lincoln: "Government of the
> contractors, by the contractors, and for the
> contractors, shall not persish...."
> 
> Heckuva a job Stephanie...
> 
> Kramer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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?

This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com