nice find, it would be really cool to see the revenue v. budget year over year.

labor related costs seem sticky, and 58% is huge. I wonder how that compares to D.C. and other metros with automated systems.

a $3b cliff due to change of ridership is impressive, but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?

> but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?

Not necessarily. Consider: what would they cut? Run fewer trains? Reducing frequency has a huge negative effect on how convenient transfers are, which means you're likely pushing more riders away. (It can be the difference between hopping off one train and catching a new one 5 minutes later rather than 10 or 15 minutes later. Not a fun change in the middle of your trips!)

That can then lead to even less fare revenue... and you really don't want that, it's the infamous transit death spiral.