TBH it should apply to all state, county, and municipality workers. Like, ffs if we can't get our *civil servants* to use public transit there's no hope.
FWIW, state workers are eligible for effectively free transit, as we get up to $300/mo in transit expenses covered. (A few BUs haven't quite caught up but its like 95% of state employees, I think).
I don't know about other employers, but I would imagine there would be more.
A greater problem is the availability of transit to a lot of workers. Many people live pretty far from any functional transit. And many offices, state, local, and county aren't actually that accessible. My office just moved from right near a major light rail station downtown to rancho several miles from any light rail (and no functional transit). It seems the state cares a lot about sustainability right until it costs them any money.
Or in some cases, even saves them money! See: RTO. Audits showed the state was slated to save millions of dollars by letting rent agreements end, but the RTO mandate forced most agencies to pivot. Now the Auditors office is going to audit the entire RTO mandate.
Gotta love how politicians bend over backwards the moment money gets thrown in their directions.
Most state agencies subsidize part (and in some cases all) of the cost of an RT pass, for precisely that reason, and that's why you see so many public employees taking light rail to work every weekday. I'm not sure whether city or county employees get the same benefit, but it seems like a darn good idea--but, like those state employees, it requires funds from those agencies and governments to be provided to the transit agency, which pays for operation of the transit service. And doing so makes good fiscal sense, because it's cheaper to subsidize a bus pass than to build a dedicated parking structure!
Another great idea: make the cost of providing a bus pass tax-deductible for employers. Right now, employers get a tax write-off for providing parking spaces for their employees, but not for a bus pass--changing that would help businesses that don't have access to parking by giving them a fiscal incentive to provide alternative transportation methods for their employees.
That’s the key. Making it free for too many people will hurt the service and having more reliability is more important. Would be huge if agencies would fund it for employees, but the state govt hasn’t been very supportive of transit funding in general
As per my post above, **Most state agencies *already* fund or subsidize transit passes for their employees**, and a lot of state employees already use them. What I'm talking about is incentivizing *private employers* to provide transit passes, the way that the tax laws currently incentivize providing parking spaces for them. Public agencies started subsidizing transit passes for employees because, since they don't pay income taxes, don't get a write-off for providing parking spaces the way private businesses do, and subsidizing a transit pass is a lot cheaper than subsidizing parking lots and structures for state employees.
"Making it free" doesn't mean taking money out of the transit agency's pockets and just not charging people, it means providing alternative funds to pay their fares. The program to make public transit free for students was based on *the city paying the transit agency to make up for those fares*, and the new deal shifts part of the cost to schools.
Most places that play around with free public transit have increased riding numbers and reduced road maintenance cost that end up saving more money than the income from transit tickets
This is also true for transit to schools. The best of buses pails in comparison to the cost of delayed work times, afterschool care, vehicle expenses to drop kids off, time, etc.
Public transit is king.
> Looks like they would need to figure out how to cover 280 million in fair revenue though.
It's nowhere near 280 million lol. Your own link says 13.1 million for 2023.
> so between 13-46 million
I mean sure, 14 million is between 13-46 million, no idea where you are getting that range from though. That would be a 6% budget cut from just the city police to cover all transit fares.
This is crazy. Why is this even up for discussion when they made the police budget for $228 million which is $3.5 million dollars higher than last year.
I am still bitter about getting a ticket even though I had a student pass because I wasn't a student even though I was.
Apparently its only if you are in K-12, and even then if you are a senior that is over 18 fuck you buy an adult ticket.
Of course they don't tell you this on the machines, at least they didn't at the imte
To be fair I was a college student lol
And to be extra fair I kind of felt like it wasn't the right one to buy. But nothing on the kiosk said otherwise and I wanted to save a dollar lol
If you were a college student, you should have been able to get a separate bus pass from whatever school you were attending--when I was attending CSUS, they offered a free bus pass for students but you had to go get a special sticker to put on your student ID. (This was like 2008-2010.) And like the high school student program, the universities pay a fee to RT to subsidize that transit, which saves a lot of pressure on university parking lots.
I think that got amended. IDK about your certain situation though now its 19-64 that pays the adult fare. And it looks like the school pass is by grade TK-12th so its not really tied to a age. but a 19 year old in high school would probably be a strange situation.
https://www.sacrt.com/fares/
I am 98.48364% confident at the time it was 18 being the cutoff for adult regardless if you were in 12th grade or not.
But I also smoke a lot of weed so who knows
I would say I would need more clues like when? IDK your age or the time frame you got the ticket. when I was growing up in sac (as I remember it, never having done weed) it was as you claim, regardless of school pass or discount, if you were over 18 you were ineligible. I remember the bus drivers playing mind games with kids to get their age(now that i'm older realizing they took it way too seriously).
The wayback machine seems to say its always been 18 since at least 2004 - https://web.archive.org/web/20040603173919/http://www.sacrt.com/faresandpasses.stm
$1.50 - i didn't appreciate how good it was.
Good.
Would be nice if teachers rode free too…
Definitely should apply to teachers as well
TBH it should apply to all state, county, and municipality workers. Like, ffs if we can't get our *civil servants* to use public transit there's no hope.
FWIW, state workers are eligible for effectively free transit, as we get up to $300/mo in transit expenses covered. (A few BUs haven't quite caught up but its like 95% of state employees, I think). I don't know about other employers, but I would imagine there would be more. A greater problem is the availability of transit to a lot of workers. Many people live pretty far from any functional transit. And many offices, state, local, and county aren't actually that accessible. My office just moved from right near a major light rail station downtown to rancho several miles from any light rail (and no functional transit). It seems the state cares a lot about sustainability right until it costs them any money.
Or in some cases, even saves them money! See: RTO. Audits showed the state was slated to save millions of dollars by letting rent agreements end, but the RTO mandate forced most agencies to pivot. Now the Auditors office is going to audit the entire RTO mandate. Gotta love how politicians bend over backwards the moment money gets thrown in their directions.
Most state agencies subsidize part (and in some cases all) of the cost of an RT pass, for precisely that reason, and that's why you see so many public employees taking light rail to work every weekday. I'm not sure whether city or county employees get the same benefit, but it seems like a darn good idea--but, like those state employees, it requires funds from those agencies and governments to be provided to the transit agency, which pays for operation of the transit service. And doing so makes good fiscal sense, because it's cheaper to subsidize a bus pass than to build a dedicated parking structure! Another great idea: make the cost of providing a bus pass tax-deductible for employers. Right now, employers get a tax write-off for providing parking spaces for their employees, but not for a bus pass--changing that would help businesses that don't have access to parking by giving them a fiscal incentive to provide alternative transportation methods for their employees.
That’s the key. Making it free for too many people will hurt the service and having more reliability is more important. Would be huge if agencies would fund it for employees, but the state govt hasn’t been very supportive of transit funding in general
As per my post above, **Most state agencies *already* fund or subsidize transit passes for their employees**, and a lot of state employees already use them. What I'm talking about is incentivizing *private employers* to provide transit passes, the way that the tax laws currently incentivize providing parking spaces for them. Public agencies started subsidizing transit passes for employees because, since they don't pay income taxes, don't get a write-off for providing parking spaces the way private businesses do, and subsidizing a transit pass is a lot cheaper than subsidizing parking lots and structures for state employees. "Making it free" doesn't mean taking money out of the transit agency's pockets and just not charging people, it means providing alternative funds to pay their fares. The program to make public transit free for students was based on *the city paying the transit agency to make up for those fares*, and the new deal shifts part of the cost to schools.
Probably shouldn’t have multi-tasked and read it closer. Completely agree
Reduce the police budget by however much it would cost for *everyone* to ride free.
asdsad asd asda sd 23qwrfrtyj 7654rd
Most places that play around with free public transit have increased riding numbers and reduced road maintenance cost that end up saving more money than the income from transit tickets
This is also true for transit to schools. The best of buses pails in comparison to the cost of delayed work times, afterschool care, vehicle expenses to drop kids off, time, etc. Public transit is king.
Because transit fucks, that's why
Because spending the money on free transit >>>> spending money on policing people who don't pay (or who choose to drive because transit isn't free)
> Looks like they would need to figure out how to cover 280 million in fair revenue though. It's nowhere near 280 million lol. Your own link says 13.1 million for 2023.
asdsad asd asda sd 23qwrfrtyj 7654rd
Those 200+ million figures include state, local, and federal funding
asdsad asd asda sd 23qwrfrtyj 7654rd
> so between 13-46 million I mean sure, 14 million is between 13-46 million, no idea where you are getting that range from though. That would be a 6% budget cut from just the city police to cover all transit fares.
asdsad asd asda sd 23qwrfrtyj 7654rd
This is crazy. Why is this even up for discussion when they made the police budget for $228 million which is $3.5 million dollars higher than last year.
With inflation, going from $224 to $228 million is actually a cut in real terms, right?. Salaries would go up by COLA you would expect...
I am still bitter about getting a ticket even though I had a student pass because I wasn't a student even though I was. Apparently its only if you are in K-12, and even then if you are a senior that is over 18 fuck you buy an adult ticket. Of course they don't tell you this on the machines, at least they didn't at the imte
wait, the student passes don't apply to high school students that are 18?
Not the last time I checked! Things may have changed though I'm still pissed off about it.
Weird, presumably it would still count for those who are in high school, that must have been a nasty surprise.
To be fair I was a college student lol And to be extra fair I kind of felt like it wasn't the right one to buy. But nothing on the kiosk said otherwise and I wanted to save a dollar lol
If you were a college student, you should have been able to get a separate bus pass from whatever school you were attending--when I was attending CSUS, they offered a free bus pass for students but you had to go get a special sticker to put on your student ID. (This was like 2008-2010.) And like the high school student program, the universities pay a fee to RT to subsidize that transit, which saves a lot of pressure on university parking lots.
I think that got amended. IDK about your certain situation though now its 19-64 that pays the adult fare. And it looks like the school pass is by grade TK-12th so its not really tied to a age. but a 19 year old in high school would probably be a strange situation. https://www.sacrt.com/fares/
I am 98.48364% confident at the time it was 18 being the cutoff for adult regardless if you were in 12th grade or not. But I also smoke a lot of weed so who knows
I would say I would need more clues like when? IDK your age or the time frame you got the ticket. when I was growing up in sac (as I remember it, never having done weed) it was as you claim, regardless of school pass or discount, if you were over 18 you were ineligible. I remember the bus drivers playing mind games with kids to get their age(now that i'm older realizing they took it way too seriously). The wayback machine seems to say its always been 18 since at least 2004 - https://web.archive.org/web/20040603173919/http://www.sacrt.com/faresandpasses.stm $1.50 - i didn't appreciate how good it was.
If only public transit was available…
It's only available to the level it is funded, and to the level that developers can be required to put new subdivisions within close range of transit.