The cost of free parking

The American Public Transportation Association has released its monthly analysis of the benefits of riding transit and declares: "Even With Declining Gas Prices, Public Transit Users Save $9,596 Per Household Annually, Up $411 From Last Year."

If only it were true in Sacramento.

The problem is that a major part of this "savings" is based on the cost of parking.

"On average, according to the 2008 Colliers International Parking Rate Study, the national average for the monthly unreserved parking rate in a city’s downtown business district is $143. Over the course of a year, parking costs alone can amount to an average of $1,720."

Yes, there are lots in downtown Sacramento that charge that much: 6th and H streets is $175 monthly; the City Hall garage, $155; Capitol Garage at 10th and L,$180; and Downtown Plaza East Garage, $145.

But all of the other downtown lots charge less than $145. And the city even offers solo commuters special deals. The Old Sacramento parking garage offers people who arrive before 7:30 a.m. and leave after 5:30 p.m., a flat $4 fee all day. In addition, major employers within easy reach of transit in midtown and downtown provide employees free parking. The Sacramento Bee comes to mind. And I won't even bring up the acres and acres of free parking sprawling around the office parks of Rancho Cordova.

No, in Sacramento the price of parking is seldom a motivation to ride transit.

Here's my idea: The state should assess a fee on all parking spaces. The money raised from such a statewide fee would be used to provide a stable source of operating revenue for transit agencies. The money raised could also provide local governments with money to improve sidewalks and bike trails.

Free parking is not free. Everyone suffers from the congestion and pollution generated by solo-vehicle trips. With stable funding for transit, the service could be expanded to truly serve the needs of everyone. And everyone would benefit from such a transit system.

RT's worst-case scenario at a glance

As mentioned yesterday, if California legislators can reach an agreement on the budget that limits cuts in state support to RT to less than $5 million, then a little belt tightening and the extra income generated by recent increases in ridership should cover the shortfall. Fares and service will be unaffected.

But if legislators give in to the governor's request to cut millions more, then the RT board will face several very hard choices when it meets Monday at 6 p.m. at RT headquarters at 29th and N streets.

Here are the fare increases that might be necessary:

RT staff have repeatedly said that service cuts should be the very last option, but if it comes to that, here's where the cuts would be made in bus service: (Click on image to see readable version.)


One other service reduction option is to reduce the hours some routes operate. The following routes would operate between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m.:

People who don't want to see these rate hikes and cuts in service need to contact their state representatives.

Balancing RT's budget

The Sacramento Regional Transit directors will consider a cafeteria plan for dealing with the expected cuts in state transportation funding when they meet Monday, Aug. 25, at 6 p.m. at RT headquarters at 29th and N streets.

The board will be asked to give General Manager Mike Wiley authority "to implement revenue enhancements including fare changes and/or cost reduction measures including service reductions determined to be necessary and in the order approved to balance the [fiscal year] 2009 operating budget based on the level of reduced transportation funding in the adopted state budget for [fiscal year] 2008-2009."

The state budget proposal back in January included a $7 million reduction in RT's state transit funds. In June, RT adopted a preliminary operating budget of $151 million, absorbing that $7 million loss. But then the governor proposed cutting RT's state funding an additional $11.5 million. A compromise suggested by Assembly and Senate negotiators would restore some of those funds, but it would still leave RT with a $4.8 million hole in its preliminary budget.

Here's Wiley prioritized budget solution. If the budget compromise holds, the loss could be covered without a direct impact on service:

• An estimated $2.3 million of the shortfall will be covered by the fare revenue brought in with the ridership increases between April and the end of the fiscal year in June.
• By not filling current vacancies in RT's staff, the disctict estimates it could save $1.5 million in labor costs.
• Changing how RT amortizes its pension obligations could save the disctrict between $800,000 and $1.3 million.

But if the district has to make up more than $5.1 million, then Wiley proposes:

• Renegotiating fare and transfer agreements with surrounding transit providers could save $300,000.
• Elimination of free rides for Paratransit-qualified riders -- making them pay the same discounted fare as seniors and students -- would raise approximately $2 million in new fare revenue.
• Charging $2 to use district park-and-ride lots, with a $30 monthly parking pass available for frequent commuters. After taking into account the startup and administrative costs, RT expects to get $1.1 million in the 2009 fiscal year and $2.2 million in subsequent years.

These steps would cover a state cut of $7.9 million. But if the bottom falls out, Wiley wants to:

• Double the Paratransit monthly pass from $100 a month to $200 in $25 steps between 2009 and 2011. RT staff say the higher price will still represent a 50 percent saving for the most frequent users of the Paratransit monthly passes. The $25 increase will generate around $100,000 the first year and $200,000 in subsequent years.
• Increase basic fare to $2.25, the daily pass to $6 and a monthly pass to $100. (Since the Paratransit fare is set at twice the basic fare, it would increase to $4.50.) Increasing fares would raise $2.2 million in the first six months of 2009 and nearly $4 million in subsequent years.

Only if the district needs to find more than $10.2 million will service reductions be considered. Bus routes that operate at "less than 70 percent of passengers per revenue hour" would be eligible for elimination. As an alternative, bus and rail service could be eliminated before 6 a.m. and after 8 p.m. Or the frequency of bus service could be adjusted so that no bus route or train ran more often than every 30 minutes during peak hours. Open for discussion is the idea of ending weekend service.

Clearly Wiley and his staff have correctly prioritized how they will respond to state cuts. What transit riders must do is contact their state representatives to ensure that transit service is not damaged in the process of balancing the state budget.

Making ends meet at Sacramento Regional Transit

The staff at Sacramento Regional Transit has set the stage for an important discussion Monday over how the district will absorb expected state reductions in operating funding. Among the proposals sure to bring crowds to the board meeting is the elimination of free bus and light rail rides for Paratransit-qualified residents. Instead, they would have to pay the same 50-percent discount as students and seniors.

Without a state budget, RT can't predict exactly how much it will have to cut to make ends meet this year. The cuts proposed by the governor had RT looking at a shortfall of $11.3 million. Thankfully, a compromise is in the works in the Legislature. According to RT General Manager Mike Wiley in his report to the district board, "If the compromise budget is approved as written, RT will experience an operating shortfall of $4.8 million in (state) revenue in (fiscal year) 2008-2009."

That $4.8 million is much better than $11.3 million, but it is still a big hole to fill. Making things harder is the fact that the easy cuts were made last year, when state funding was reduced $14 million below what RT had budgeted. Making ends meet last year required cuts in service. RT wants to do everything possible to avoid more service cuts.

"Staff firmly believes and agrees that RT is in the business of providing service and not cutting service," Wiley told the board.

The one spot of good news in the report is the estimate that the increase in ridership generated by higher gasoline prices and the Interstate 5 fix have brought in about $1.1 million more in fare revenue than the district had budgeted.

That will help, but something else will have to give and first on Wiley's list of options for the board is the elimination of the Paratransit Group Pass.

"The group pass originated to provide a lower cost alternative for Paratransit eligible riders and their qualified care givers," Wiley explains. "The cost of riders to ride Paratransit is now $4, although the cost to RT is $60 per ride."

Anecdotal evidence cited by Wiley suggests that many people apply for Paratransit eligibility just so they can get the free RT pass.

A staff survey of transportation agencies found the free ride option is unusual. "Of the 20 transit agencies surveyed," according to Wiley, "only two, besides RT, offer free ridership."

As Wiley points out, while charging $1 is a big hike from a free ride, it is still a substantial discount from the $4 Paratransit charge.

Making Paratransit-qualified riders pay the same fare as the elderly will generate about $1.1 million in new revenue.

Another proposal that many will find annoying is the addition of a parking fee at light rail park-and-ride lots. Wiley is proposing a $1 to $2 fee, with the $2 option his preferred choice. Wiley estimates the $2 fee would generate $1.1 million, assuming a midyear start.

Wiley and his staff have found some staffing cuts, areas that he admits will cause morale problems, and a couple of options for stringing out how the district funds its pension. (This will not affect the actual pension benefits.)

And, finally, there's proposed fare increases. The staff has put together four scenarios. At one end, riders would see basic fares rising to $2.25, daily passes to $5.50 and the monthly pass going to $95. At the other extreme, basic fares would increase to $2.50, the daily pass to $6.25 and the monthly pass to $106.

Putting all of this together, Wiley offers two examples of how this could play out.

If the district needs to raise $5.3 million, RT could do that with the extra money from increased ridership, the end of Paratransit free rides, reduced staffing levels, a modest shift in the pension contributions and the smallest of the proposed fare increases.

If the state doesn't come through and RT has to make up for a cut of $11.8 million, then the real pain will happen. In addition to the other stuff, RT would institute the parking fee, increase the fares to the highest option, make an even more drastic adjustment to the pension contributions and reduce bus and light rail service enough to scrap together $6.6 million per year to achieve $3.3 million in fiscal year 2009. Wiley provides a number of ways to cut service to raise this money. (See this press release.)

It's time for more of those letters to lawmakers telling them the importance of transit and the reason why it should remain a priority for the state. The alternative is just too bleak to consider.

* * *

The public hearing will be held July 28 at 6 p.m. in the RT Auditorium located at 1400 29th Street (at N Street).

Wayne's world

The Bee has a letter today from a guy named Wayne Bruns. Wayne is an unhappy former Sacramento Regional Transit customer.

"During my rides, I encountered spaced-out drug addicts, boisterous gangs of youths, ticketless riders, fresh vomit and an overall lack of security presence that became unnerving."

As someone who feels compelled to defend RT, my first response is to disregard Wayne's hyperbole. After all, what magic power does Wayne possess that allows him to know when he is in the presence of "ticketless riders"?

But regular readers of this blog will appreciate why I can't deny that sometimes -- not always, not often, but sometimes -- riding transit can be "too intimidating" -- even for a guy who would be loath to describe himself as an "older person."

Yesterday, I worked at home for the first half of the day. (Go Barça!) At around 2 p.m. I was standing at the 65th Street light rail station waiting for the inbound train. Nearby was a man who was yelling.

At first the guy wasn't yelling at anything in particular. But after a few minutes he started yelling at a guy all dressed up in a cycling outfit who was eating a sandwich next to his bike. The more the cyclist ignored the guy, the louder the guy got. He was hoping up and down and back and forth and gesturing, but he wasn't approaching the cyclist or making any other hostile moves. He was just yelling. (I suspect he's the same guy I met here.)

Eventually, the cyclist finished his sandwich and walked across Q Street to where a guy wearing a security guard uniform was waiting for a bus. The guard wasn't one of RT's contract Wachenhut guys. This was just some Joe heading home. But he was willing to help out the cyclist. He walked over and calmed the yeller down.

The train arrived and I didn't get a chance to see the end of the story. But that night on my bus ride home I got to share the ride with a boisterous guy who let everyone know he was from Detroit. He was seated with a woman. In the seat in front of him was a sleeping bag and backpack. He wasn't in the same league with the teen girls from Friday, but I think Wayne would have had an issue with riding with this guy.

The Bee uses Wayne's letter to segue into a discussion of Sacramento Regional Transit's efforts to get a law passed that would give them the authority to ban habitually misbehaving riders for as long as a year.

The Bee explains that RT's legislation was derailed by "civil libertarians, who feared it would be used by transit districts to target the mentally ill or homeless."

I consider myself a liberal guy, the sort of person who feels the homeless and the mentally ill deserve a break. Generally, I feel those "uncomfortable" riding with people different from themselves should just get over it. But as a daily rider of buses and light rail I don't see why disruptive behavior must be tolerated as some sort of civil right.

An alliance for transit funding

A court ruling Jan. 31 said the state's raid last year on public transportation funds to help balance the state budget was illegal. Well, $409 million of the $1.18 billion taken from the state Public Transportation Account was illegally diverted, the judge ruled.

But since it will likely be an easy task for the state to shift accounts around to make the remaining $409 million theft pass legal muster, representatives of transit agencies are considering taking their cause to the public. According to an editorial:

Transit officials are discussing the possibility of going even further, perhaps forming an alliance with other state transportation interests to back an initiative that would put a gas tax or carbon fee on the ballot, with the funds earmarked for public transit.

This is fine. But an effort that focuses only on public transit isn't going to get the majority support necessary for passage in a statewide election.

Sure, people say transit is important. In heavily urbanized areas such as the Bay Area, transit is recognized as a essential service. But in areas such as suburban Sacramento or any of the outlying communities, transit is viewed as something only the poor and disabled folk use. Deserving folks, yes, but additional freeway lanes and road maintenance are viewed as a higher priority.

So transit needs some allies outside the highway lobby.

The purpose of a carbon tax would be to encourage a reduction in our global warming footprint. Therefore, the benefits of the tax should go to all of those transportation options that meet this goal -- not just transit, but funding for improved bikeways and making communities more walkable.

Transit people need to join forces with bicycle advocates and people who promote walking. Such an alliance could get majority support, even in Roseville. Well, OK, in my dreams. But statewide, a carbon tax, or an increase in the fuel tax -- a global warming tax -- that raised money for transit and bikes and walking would go much further than a transit-only proposal.

The Transitarian Gore

I remember the first time I saw a news report years ago about a celebrity who arrived at some gala function in a Toyota Prius, making a point about the need to do what we can to reduce our personal environmental impact. Soon lots of celebrities were driving Priuses, and Toyota couldn't keep up with demand.

Saturday I was encouraged to see the small story in The Bee's World Digest: Gore uses Oslo mass transit.

OSLO, Norway -- Former Vice President Al Gore skipped the traditional airport motorcade and took public transportation when he arrived Friday in Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize he shared for his campaign against global warming.

Gore will accept the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize he shared with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at a ceremony in the Norwegian capital on Monday.

Longer versions of the Associated Press story included this:

Before his arrival with his wife, Tipper, Gore told his hosts that he would not need the traditional motorcade from the airport, preferring to take the high-speed and environmentally friendly airport train, and then walking to his downtown Oslo hotel.

"I use public transport when I can. It isn't always possible," Gore told The Associated Press while walking to his hotel. He said the train was much faster than a limousine, but that it was also a symbol of efforts to reduce pollution in hopes of slowing climate change.

"It is a gesture. It is also one of the changes we are all going to have to be doing anyway," Gore said about the need to change travel habits.

I'm not completely sold on Al Gore's new role as environmental guru. He is certainly profiting handsomely from it. (See this Dec. 9 TimesOnline article: A convenient £50m for green Gore.) But if Gore can convince more people that riding transit is a socially responsible, environmentally sensitive thing to do, then more power to him.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been riding Gore's coattails, trying to get a little of that popularity that attaches to all things green today. Now that Gore is riding transit, one can only hope we'll see a similar transformation of "The Evil Transitator."

Between Sacramento to Atlanta

And so I was reading the news that the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority made the long-expected decision official:

After a year-long national search, MARTA's board of directors on Sept. 10 named Beverly Scott, general manager of the Sacramento Regional Transit District, as MARTA's new GM.

I went to the MARTA Web site looking for some more information. There wasn't anything on Scott's hiring. But I was fascinated by this:

Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
MARTA REPORTS BUDGET SURPLUS FOR SECOND YEAR IN A ROW

MARTA announced today that the Authority has achieved an operating budget surplus for the second year in a row – recording $12.1 million in additional revenues for FY07. This marks only the second time in 20 years that MARTA has recorded an operating budget surplus for two consecutive fiscal years. MARTA also ended FY07 with $117.4 million in capital reserves. The capital program funds additions and improvements to infrastructure and supports the Authority’s bonding capacity.

“Thanks to a strict fiscal management plan, strategic cost containment measures and improved financial performance in recent years, MARTA has achieved this significant accomplishment,” said MARTA General Manager Richard McCrillis. “We will continue to reinvest surplus revenues into system improvements and sustaining our strong financial outlook for the future.”

As a result of its financial success, MARTA has focused on reinvesting funds into enhancing the quality of service for customers and sustaining upgrades and maintenance to the system. MARTA has increased bus service, added security, cleaning and customer service personnel, and invested in capital improvements such as the Breeze fare collection system and rail car rehabilitation program. These service improvement efforts have contributed to a 4.3% increase in passenger revenue over the last year – helping the Authority to maintain its financial stability.

Budget surplus? Increased bus service? Additional security? Capital improvements? Can we hire the guy who is leaving Atlanta to replace Scott? Please?

Sparing the air on the bus

On Sunday, the Sacramento Air Quality Management District was predicting a poisonous day today. The air was going to be so unhealthy that residents were cautioned to leave their cars at home today and take transit. In response, the Yolo County bus companies -- Unitrans, the University of California, Davis, service and Yolo Bus -- offered free rides.

When I traveled to the Bay Area on Sept. 2 I learned that all of the transit services offer either free rides during air quality alerts or what is, in effect, half-price fares by allowing riders to board for free until 1 p.m.

And so it occurred to me that I've never heard any mention of Sacramento Regional Transit's role in helping out on bad air days. I contacted RT's customer service people who answer the mail at cad@sacrt.com and received this response:

RT does not receive additional funding to participate in Spare the Air Day. The other transit services receive funding to offer free service.

Recently I've been complaining about how environmental groups abandoned transit riders when they refused to help stop state cutbacks in transit funding. Obviously, the one local agency that can do something about air pollution is transit, but only if it receives enough support to provide a service that can entice people out of their cars. Environmentalists should be transit riders or at the very least transit supporters.

But now I'm wondering whether RT understands its place in the environmental movement. Does RT only see itself as a mobility service for the poor and disabled?

I was looking forward to grumpily choking while I fumed about RT and its failure to help fight dirty air, but then the air today wasn't as dirty as expected. The Sacramento Air Quality Management District removed its alert. At 1 p.m., the current regional air quality status was healthy everywhere for ozone and, at worse, just "moderate" for particulate matter in a few locations.

So I can breathe easier, but I'm still grumpy. I want to hear that Regional Transit has pursued state and federal air quality dollars to pay for the very real effects that would be brought to the region if people left their cars at home. It's not like we're talking about months of free rides, as this graph of this year's air quality shows.


Sacramento Regional Transit can do more to promote the environmental benefits of its service.

Back to the future (continuted)

The Sacramento History blog has posted the second part of its series on Sacramento's Streetcar Suburbs. The tale of real estate investor Edwin K. Alsip and plumbing and tinware seller Leonidas Lee Lewis and the Central Street Railway they founded to serve their new Oak Park neighborhood certainly makes this transitarian long for those bygone days.

Imagine if today's developers of, say, Placer Vineyards were equally enlightened. The Oak Park neighborhood probably had a density similar to Placer Vineyards' proposed three housing units per acre.

Instead, we have neighboring Sutter County suing because Placer County's planning process didn't take into consideration the traffic mess such a low-density project would create.

What if the Township 9 project on Richards Boulevard in the city of Sacramento were the model for Placer Vineyards? A development with 36 housing units per acre might generate enough transit ridership that even a modern developer and businessman would see the advantages.

**sigh**

Sorry, I can only maintain that much optimism for so long before reality comes crashing back down. I have genuinely enjoyed my first six months of relying on Sacramento Regional Transit to get to and from work. Sure, I'm fortunate to live on a popular bus route and work at a location near a light rail stop. There must be more people in Sacramento in similar situations who could leave their cars at home, even if just one or two days a week. One or two more riders here, a couple there and pretty soon you are talking crowds. I certainly hope the recent decline in ridership is a temporary reaction to the rate increase.

Trying **puff puff** to remain **puff puff** optimistic.

**sigh**

Back to the future

The Sacramento History blog offers an interesting take on the origin of transit in Sacramento. In the post entitled Sacramento's Streetcar Suburbs, the author explains:

Despite the contemporary image of public transportation as primarily a means for the working class and poor to get around, streetcars (along with other early public transit methods like steamboats, steam railroads and omnibuses) were originally intended for the middle class.

Perhaps this offers a historical answer to the RTDriver guy's rant.

Budgets and service cuts

Sacramento Regional Transit has announced a series of proposed route changes in anticipation of a cutback in state transit funding.

According to RT's press release:

The State budget expected to be approved calls for a $1.3 billion loss to public transportation, which will result in a $14 million annual loss to RT and a $1.6 million reduction of bus service. In anticipation of this budget shortfall, RT has implemented cost saving measures and internal cuts to offset further reductions in service.

The full press release is available here.

A fuller explanation of the proposed cutbacks is available from RiderShip for the Masses on this page.

A public hearing will be held Monday, Aug. 13, at 6 p.m. in the RT Auditorium at 1400 29th Street (at N Street). Comments must be received by 5 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 8. Submit comments to RT Planning Dept., P.O. Box 2110, Sacramento, CA 95812-2110

Guilty pleasures

Today's Sacramento Bee has a commentary by Daniel Weintraub under the telling headline:
Governor: Environmentalism for the manly man.

It seems the governor wants to change the image of the environmental movement. He wants to push aside the scolds and replace them with optimists. Instead of using guilt to push people out of their SUVs and into environmentally friendlier autos and transit, the governor wants to encourage the sort of technological innovation that will allow people to keep their SUVs.

That is what you have to do. You have to make things cool, you have to make things sexy and cutting edge. And so we don’t have to take away the cars from the people, the SUVs, the Hummers, and the muscle cars. No. That formula is a formula for failure. Instead, what we have to do is make those muscle cars and those SUVs and those Hummers more environmentally muscular.

I am reminded of the difference between factory farms and free-range ranching. A vegetarian may approve of moving away from factory farms, but killing is still killing. A transitarian approves wholeheartedly of the efforts to reduce the toxic nature of SUVs. But transit must remain a major component in any realistic plan to cope with the full range of problems created by California's overreliance on the single-occupant vehicle as the principal mode of transportation.

For a transitarian there's nothing to cheer in pimping Arnold's ride:

What we did was, we took a 1965 Impala and we made it into a lowrider, but not an ordinary lowrider. We dropped in an 800 horsepower engine that goes from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds. I mean, really very powerful. But what is unique is that that engine is powered by biofuel. That means it emits 50 percent less greenhouse gases, and it goes twice as far.

Please, who needs an 800 horsepower car on a gridlocked freeway system?

The governor's basic idea is great. And if his acts matched his words I might cheer when he says:

So, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t think that any movement has ever made it, or has ever made much progress based on guilt, because guilt is passive, guilt is inhibiting, and guilt is defensive. You remember the commercial a number of years ago of the Native American that has seen what we have done to the environment, and then all of a sudden a tear runs down his cheek. Well, you know something? That approach did not work, it was disastrous. Successful movements are all built on passion, not on guilt. They’re built on passion, they’re built on confidence, and they’re built on critical mass, and often they’re built on an element of alarm that galvanizes action.

But this is the same governor who has proposed cutting state funding for transit in order to focus on highway lanes. That's simply wrong.

You can read the governor's full speech here.

The evil Transitator

Today, Bee readers learned that on March 26, California's governor, he of Terminator movie fame, decided to take his first ride on Sacramento Regional Transit's light rail system.

The transitarian is not amused. According to the article in The Bee:

"He is just a curious person, interested in new things," Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said. "There is really not much more to say about it than that."

Interested in new things?

• RT has operated the Watt / I-80 line since 1987, when it opened the 18.3-mile light rail “starter line.”
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, the guy waiting for the 9:05 p.m. train at the 13th Street light rail station on March 26, 2007, was sworn in as California's 38th governor on Nov. 18, 2003.

The evil Transitator got off the light rail line at Watt, where he was met by his chauffeur and the rest of his security detail. The next day, March 27, according to The Bee:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Tuesday he will increase six-figure salaries for top state executives by as much as 27 percent, a move that could precipitate similar raises for his own chief of staff and other top aides in the future.

The pay hikes for 49 executives come after the Republican governor signed legislation last year enabling his administration to raise top salaries to as much as $258,125. At the time, Schwarzenegger's office said it had no plans to give raises except to the heads of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Highway Patrol.

Schwarzenegger said the raises are necessary to retain and attract talented leaders who otherwise would flee to higher-paying jobs. The 49 executives will receive pay increases starting April 1 that average 9 percent, though 10 agency secretaries will receive nearly a 23 percent bump.

This is the same governor who, in January, proposed a state budget for the coming fiscal year that would shift $1 billion in gas tax funds away from transit. His excuse: He must fill the state budget deficit.

RT's general manager, Beverly A. Scott, has been preparing for an "Armageddon" budget in the event the evil Transitator succeeds in cutting transit funding. According to The Bee, the RT board this week eliminated several planned bus service expansions in Natomas and Arden Arcade (where the tranistarian lives), and froze spending at last year's levels.

On the governor's one and only light rail ride, he apparently spent most of his time chatting with the train operator, getting the sort of cook's tour any celebrity would receive.

If the governor really wants to try something new, he should have his "security detail" drive him into the UnCity that surrounds the city of Sacramento and then ride a bus -- actually it will have to be at least two buses -- to the Capitol. Of course, if he tries to do that at 9 p.m. he had better plan closely. The buses don't run every 15 minutes.