On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:56:01 -0800, jJim McLaughlin wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:36:58 -0600, Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


I have a theory which says that if bus occupancy increased that much, it
might be possible to buy more busses. I'm not sure, though.


I'll bet you're not.


Ridership has NOTHING to do (anymore) with buying new busses. Additional
fleecing of the non-riding taxpayer has EVERYTHING to do with it.


I was wondering when the psychotic trolls would chime in.



What part of Redfels post has anything to do with "...psychotic trolls..."?

Where I live, Portland, Oregon, the local mass transit agency, Tri-Met
makes no bones about the failure of the farebox to actually pay for
the service. Tri Met reports that less than 20% of costs are paid by he
farebox.

Add up road costs, add up emergency service (police, fire, medical),
subtract the little taxed onto gas, and you find that public transportation
is a bargain.

Unless, of course, you're a hermit.