Time for a bus-fare reality check
King County's Metro Transit service is under pressure from a surge in ridership and higher fuel costs. There are solutions to these problems, but they aren't painless, says this transportation analyst. Among other things, riders should be paying more — a lot more — and Metro should consider privatizing some routes.
With gas prices still on the north side of $4 per gallon, more people than ever are riding King County Metro buses in Seattle and some parts of the suburbs. Ridership was up 7 percent last year, and as the Puget Sound Business Journal's Dierdre Gregg reports, continued growth is straining the system, with more riders getting bypassed at stops as stuffed buses too often breeze right past:
For riders of King County's jam-packed buses, there's good news and bad news. The good: The Transit Now program, which voters approved in 2006, will add 15 percent to 20 percent more service over the course of 10 years. The bad: That growth pace doesn't come close to matching the growth in ridership. The number of people climbing aboard Metro has gone up by 20 percent in three years. Moreover, the number of full buses that bypassed waiting passengers jumped by 45 percent in just the last year.
"Are we meeting the demand for bus services? The answer is no," said King County Executive Ron Sims. Despite the ardent desire of regional leaders like Sims to boost ridership, they have not carved a clear path for meeting the demand. Instead, local politicians are divided over whether to add transit taxes, fees and fares.
Sometimes Metro buses don't show up at all, or arrive far more than five minutes late, which is the system's on-time standard. An anecdote: Last month at First Avenue and Jackson Street in downtown Seattle, I waited for a Route 21 bus back to West Seattle that simply never came.
The same afternoon I was stood up by the 21, the 22 that was supposed to arrive 10 minutes later was still nowhere in sight 15 minutes after scheduled arrival. I left. I learned later from Metro that it did actually show up at First and Jackson. Eighteen minutes late. I'd like to say that in my experience these were isolated incidents, but they're not. It's been my impression, as a regular rider with an employer-provided bus pass, that about one in four waits for a Metro bus turns irrevocably fruitless either due to a no-show or excessive tardiness. I've received similar reports from other riders. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted earlier this year that on-time performance was down to 74 percent (it had been around 80 percent) and that more passengers getting on and off has added to delays.
To top it all off, lower-than-anticipated sales tax revenue means Metro will be short $45 million, or almost that amount, in this and each of the next two years. As a result, Metro is publicly grappling with fare hikes higher than the envisioned 25 cents, or cutting back on new Transit Now service for which voters thought they were paying when approving a 2006 sales tax increase of 0.1 percent. The new money was supposed to fund more runs on heavily used routes, and five new quasi-bus rapid transit (BRT) routes known as Rapid Ride. The triple whammy of costlier fuel, slackening sales tax revenue, and growing ridership is hitting bus transit systems nationwide.
Stiff fare hikes seem a small price to pay, if Metro can figure out a way to winnow routes and improve consistency. To salve delays, Metro does offer an online, real-time tool so you can check if your bus is running on time before heading to the stop (no information is available for re-routed buses). The service can be helpful, but plenty of people don't have access to the Internet before going to a bus stop. Adherence to the published schedule is crucial, as is adequate capacity on major routes.
Cut the lowest-ridership routes, let's say the lowest one-third, and re-deploy the buses and drivers to the busiest runs, where riders are most often bypassed. Where regulations require that regional sub-areas be apportioned a certain percentage of total Metro bus service, the King County Council should confront those mandates head-on. We could let politics undermine a common-sense re-deployment of limited resources. But let's not.
There's some hope. Metro does indicate that it wants to consider cutting some routes to beef up others. In its 2007-2016 strategic plan, the agency discusses (on pages 1-4) the possibility of expanding, modifying, or terminating some routes, based on performance.
Good. Metro also wants to make the published schedule more accurate. On pages 1-5 of the strategic plan [PDF], the agency says it aims to "improve on-time performance through routing adjustments, splitting of unreliable through-route pairs, adding of recovery time between trips ... and adding time or trips to schedules to account for slower travel speeds or recurring overloads." The 10 employees in the county's transit "speed and reliability" division should be able to figure it out. Myself, I'd settle for reliability. Predictability. It's the holy grail of transportation. Another way to cut loading and debarking times and help the buses run on schedule is with a mandatory pre-paid fare system, including scanners for fare compliance at dual, ground-level entrances/exits on each bus.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 9:40 a.m. inappropriate
Real-Time Bus Arrival Info With Just a Regular Cell Phone: Note that it is now possible to get real-time bus arrival information using just a plain-old cellphone.
See http://onebusaway.org/ and http://onebusaway.org/where/phone/ specifically for simple instructions.
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 9:59 a.m. inappropriate
Service cuts and transit reliability: I neither thoroughly agree nor thoroughly disagree with your thoughts here. There are a couple important points to make, however.
First, Metro may be legally prohibited from cutting the least productive third of their routes. King County regulations currently require 40% of service increases to go to East King County, 40% to go to South King County, with just 20% going to Seattle and Shoreline. I'm guessing that most of the least-productive routes in the Metro system are in East King County, some in the South, possibly a few in Shoreline. This distribution of service additions is ridiculous anyway, as it prevents improvements from being made to the routes and neighborhoods that most need them, but it could also prevent service cuts from being made in an appropriate way. The King County Council should immediately do away with this regulation and allow Metro to make the best, most efficient use of the service dollars they have available.
Second, bus reliability is impacted by many factors. I work for a transit agency (not Metro), and we also are having problems with schedule adherence due to increased boardings. However, just as important for our service is the fact that our buses are stuck in the same traffic as everyone else with travel times that vary wildly from day to day. Travel times along I-5 can vary by as much as a half-hour, especially during the afternoon. Other arterials that intersect with I-5 service or that parallel the freeway are also impacted by this, which means that much transit service during the afternoon peak is unreliable because it is forced to use an inherently unreliable street system. This is why HOV lanes that preserve a reliable path are incredibly important on existing freeways, and why HOV lanes and transit signal priority should be implemented on many arterials. This is also an excellent reason to vote against I-985, which would open HOV lanes to general traffic during hours when commute traffic is still heavy (anyone who drives on area freeways knows that congestion does not magically end at 6 pm). This is also an excellent reason to vote for the Sound Transit package this fall, which would eventually remove buses from much of I-5, providing completely reliable transit service along that corridor, giving general purpose traffic more room in which to operate, and allowing transit agencies to re-purpose their current I-5 service to other areas in their system that may be more in need.
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 11:22 a.m. inappropriate
Wait a second....: Regarding your article "Time for a bus-fare reality check" -- You say, "Stiff fare hikes seem a small price to pay," but you also say, "as a regular rider with an employer-provided bus pass." I'd say you might want to offer up some opinions other than your own...maybe like some of us who actually have to pay for their own bus pass.
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 12:56 p.m. inappropriate
lower not higher fares: It may seem upside-down to Mr. Rosenberg to suggest lower fares rather than higher fares but here goes. From 1974 to 1980 I was the transit planner at Metro. Then the fare box covered about 1/3 of the revenue with Motor Vehicle Excise tax (MVET) and Sales tax (ST) covering the other 2/3. Now there is no MVET and as I read in the papers at least, the fare box is covering less than in the past.
If we look at the global picture of fossil fuel usage it is almost self-evident that getting people out of cars is even more urgent now than 25 years ago. Public transit is not THE answer but it is a healthy part of the answer. I say we replenish the coffers with the MVET done away with in 1999 and lower if not do away with fares. I am confident that such action will dramatically increase ridership appreciably reducing the carbon footprint
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 4:10 p.m. inappropriate
Be careful what you ask for...: Let's take a look at the extreme example of what's being asked here. For ideal efficiency, we'd have no bus routes except between high density residential areas and high density business areas. We'd price based on destination - so diesel busses to the suburbs would be 10x the cost of a 2 mile electric trolley trip downtown.
The result? A useless bus system that nobody would use.
I think taxes should cover bus infrastructure (busses, drivers, wires) while fares should cover consumables (fuel, maintenance). Why? Because the tax payer is paying for the ability to take a bus - being able to go from any point to any other point. The bus rider is simply using this service that he's already paid for, but paying extra for his impact on that system.
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 5:12 p.m. inappropriate
Agree on many points: I think you raise a ton of good points.
I've come to find my 2.8 mile commute is just as long, if not longer, on Metro than my former 10 mile commute to Microsoft was in my car. How could that be?
Well, the route map for some popular routes is just maddening. Why does the 48 run from Columbia City to Ballard? How many people actually take that bus from Columbia City to Ballard? Why is it chronically late? Because it travels the entire length of the city and over one of the most packed bridges during rush hour--the Montlake Bridge! In most systems, if you wanted to connect to two unlogical endpoints, you'd have to transfer. Not Metro.
The 2--it runs from Madrona Park to SPU. Why? How many SPU students are commuting to Madrona Park? How many Queen Anne residents are commuting to Madrona Park? Not many. Why is the route slow and late? Because it travels between too unlogical endpoints through a crowded downtown core that ensures it will be delayed, when in reality it should drop folks off downtown and head back to one of the other endpoints.
I think if Metro looked hard at their data they'd find efficiencies in these gerrymandered routes.
Wrt public private partnerships, I think Metro service would be ideal, esp for high value and high mileage routes (downtown to Northgate, downtown to Bvue, downtown to Ballard). These routes could support the less subsidized operations of a private operator.
Posted Wed, Aug 6, 9:24 p.m. inappropriate
End the $.25 cent fare: Millionaire seniors should NOT be given a $.25 cent fare. I would raise all minimum fares for all ages to $1.00. Even toddlers who get credit for HOV eligibility should get charged to ride the bus.
Posted Thu, Aug 7, 9 a.m. inappropriate
RE: nd the $.25 cent fare: Yeah! I blame the damn freeloading children.
Posted Thu, Aug 7, 1:43 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Wait a second....: I do not have an employer provided bus pass, nor do I have even a partial subsidy on my bus pass costs. I still believe spending $63 a month for a peak one-zone pass is a worthwhile investment. After all, it is impossible to run a car on the same amount, not even counting the cost of fuel and insurance. While it's true the bus service is not always as convenient in terms of time spent traveling, not to mention the wait times, for me it's still a no-brainer. I use the downtime to read, listen to music, or just "chill". The pace of life is hurried enough; having a few extra minutes to myself each day makes the inconvenience much less so for me.
Posted Thu, Aug 7, 11:14 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Be careful what you ask for...: Wishing for a reliable bus system is just about as useful as wishing light rail was cheap and quick to deploy.
Matt Rosenberg writes a thoughtful piece. One BIG oversight: the decision several years ago by Sims and suburban King County Council Members to allocate new bus service hours according to political demand rather than transit rider demand. Known as the 40-40-20 rule, we now get to experience the wonders of empty buses cruising around the eastside all day and night, while at-capacity Seattle buses skip bus stops because there isn't room (empty buses are a great way to re-enforce conservative suburbanites that public transit is a waste of tax dollars)
If Matt Rosenberg is worried about better farebox recovery, he may wish to explore the results of this disastrous policy.
It's simply not reasonable to believe an all-private bus system is politically feasible here.
Posted Sat, Aug 9, 2:56 p.m. inappropriate
interaction of transit fares with Sound Transit Prop 1 revenue increase: The relationship between bus transit fares and Sound Transit's current Proposition 1 to double its revenues with a 1/2 cent sales tax hike should be explored. Sound Transit now collects one million dollars per day in regional taxes, and starting in January 2009 hopes to double that to two million dollars per day with a more than doubled sales tax.
Is raising bus fares and while trying to double the regressive transit sales tax at the same time a good thing?
Notwithstanding the financials and business model for running public transit, raising bus fares will reduce the effectiveness of King County Metro as a social service program for people without access to a vehicle, or whose financial capacity to drive in the face of $4 plus gasoline is limited. So too would social service effectiveness fall by cutting service on the existing network of bus routes that attempt to put some kind of transit (even if infrequent service) within walking distance of the vast majority of residential locations in King County.
In related news, Governor Chris Gregoire is on record saying she wishes County Executive Ron Sims' plan to divert some of Sound Transit's coming tax hike toward more bus service had been approved by the Sound Transit Board on July 24, but it didn't happen.
Instead, a slight service increase in ST Express Bus service (@ $2.50 fare) was proposed by DOT Secretary Paula Hammond and approved by the ST Board. Within the Sound Transit financial envelope for building the most expensive light rail in world history, the effect on ST's cash flow and borrowing is trivial.
Point I'm making is that Sound Transit is consuming vast public transit resources that could be better allocated, and this big agency wants to consume more. We do not have a transit resources insufficiency problem in the region. We have a resources allocation issue that crosses agency boundaries.
Members of Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives know that a serious but still fractional diversion of Sound Transit's forthcoming Proposition 1 Do-Over tax hike of 1/2 cents per dollar would work miracles in expanding and improving regional bus service.
Yes, this would take State Legislative authorization. The trading of lane capacity for cars in exchange for more space to run buses on existing streets is being rapidly accelerated by the ongoing rise in gasoline prices that is lowering car-miles traveled all across America and this region.
Back to bus fares: In early 2001 former Metro Transit Director Chuck Collins presented an all-bus plan of transit spending including zero fares, road right-of-way improvements for buses, and buying a lot more buses. His Ride Free Express plan overall required less money than Sound Transit collected at the time yet supported more transit ridership across the entire region than ST was programmed to deliver in just a few passenger railroad corridors with a billion dollars more money than Ride Free Express required.
Now imagine what could be done with the additional billions and billions and billions that ST seeks in the regional Proposition 1 tax election of November 4.
Footnote: Collins' plan was denounced at the time by Sound Transit advocates who came up with all sorts of phony reasons to depict fare-free rides as a bad idea. Ironically, a few years later Sound Transit introduced the fare-free street trolley called Tacoma Link that continues to the present day.