Letters for April 9, 2015

Give up on ‘choice riders’

Re “Taken for a ride” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Feature Story, March 26):

You're absolutely right that RT is screwing the poor in order to tilt at the windmill of getting non-poor people to ride transit. And that effort is a complete waste of time; as long as driving is an option, everyone who can afford to will continue to do it.

I just hope SN&R readers will come out in force when RT holds hearings for its next proposed light rail line, or the one after that. No matter how much you're pro-transit, light rail is always a huge waste of money comparettd to running the same service using buses.

Get real, guys. Public transportation is and always will be strictly a welfare service for people who either can't afford to drive or can't qualify for a driver's license. Run it that way, and stop bitching about people who have the common sense to drive cars. And start building freeways again; the increasing population needs them.

John Galt


Hold RT riders accountable

Re “Taken for a ride” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Feature Story, March 26):

I think that Regional Transit does a pretty decent job overall for the Sacramento area. However, as a person who moved from the East Coast and who has used several public transit systems in various cities, it totally baffles me that RT would, of all things, yank its buses in certain areas and the transfer program from patrons, yet provide the possibility of free rides on light rail. At least with the transfer system there’s accountability that the fare has actually been paid.

Pat King


A few RT thoughts

Re “Taken for a ride” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Feature Story, March 26):

I really enjoyed Cosmo Garvin’s article about Regional Transit. He provided a lot of information and made some really good points. … Garvin noted that several of the bus routes discontinued in 2009 are feeders to light rail. I hope RT recognizes that, with their current fare policy (no transfers), they often lose two fares for each lost passenger when they discontinue one of these routes—the fare for the bus and the fare for the light rail. There is a cost savings for discontinuing the bus, but there is no cost savings by not having this rider on the train.

Stephen Miller

East Sacramento

Don’t pay college athletes

Re “Pay college athletes” (SN&R Editorial, March 26):

Student-athletes can’t have it both ways. They can’t receive an income from the college or university and a scholarship as well.

If you begin to pay these athletes and they are no longer receiving a scholarship, they will have to pay for their education.

Less than 2 percent of all college athletes will become professionals in their sport. So, what about the 98 percent? If they now are going to be paid and have all of the extra expenses of attending a college or university, they are going to in the same or worse position as other college students. They will leave college with a degree (possibly) and a huge student debt.

Paying college athletes just doesn’t pencil out.

William Levin