Metro's dilemma: high demand, thin wallet
Something has to be done about financing Metro, says outgoing bus boss Ron Sims. We also need a new way for bus lines to serve an urban region that is no longer hub-and-spoke.
You're waiting for a bus in downtown Seattle. The street hustler is talking loudly on his cell phone. The bag lady is mumbling to herself. The empty bottle lies on the pavement. The trash blows up against the bus shelter. If you were to lean against the nearby building, you'd have to wash your clothes. If you were to sit in the shelter, you'd have to inhale the cigarette smoke. If it's getting dark, you may remember the homeless guy who got shot at a bus stop by Benaroya Hall in January, or the Tuba Man's fatal beating near a bus stop close to Seattle Center.
The experience will be different on July 18, when Sound Transit opens its sleek new light rail service from downtown Seattle to Tukwila. (You always wanted to go to Tukwila, didn't you?) You won't have to wait at a grungy stop. You won't have to climb stairs to get on or off. You won't have to share waiting space or seats with drunks or mumblers.
Under the circumstances, won't the Metro bus system be the ugly stepchild of public transportation? Of course. “Buses will always be the ugly stepchild,” former King County Executive Ron Sims told me, shortly before he resigned to become Obama's Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. “But they're necessary.”
Indeed, while slick light rail and cute streetcars stir the imagination, buses represent both the present and future of mass transportation in the Seattle area. Sound Transit expects its Link light rail trains to carry 26,000 passengers each weekday by the end of next year. In 2007, on an average weekday, Metro carried 365,000.
So here we are, blowing hot air about our commitment to halting climate change, preserving green space, and saving the Sound — all of which require increased use of public transportation — and here Metro is facing a $168-million revenue shortfall over the next two years. Is there a little disconnect?
Metro and other Washington transit agencies get .9 percent from the sales tax. Historically, King County (which operates Metro) has watched sales tax revenues go up 5.5 percent a year, the figure Metro has used for planning purposes. But times have changed. This year, sales tax revenues have declined 6 percent. In 2010, they're expected to rise again, but less than 1 percent. In 2011, they're expected to rise less than 2 percent. As a result, the agency projects a revenue gap of $74 million next year and a $94-million gap in 2011.
By the time sales tax revenue resumes its “normal” rate of increase (assuming that eventually happens) the system will be standing in a deep hole. Metro can't raise fares much without driving away riders. The system has relied on fare increases to keep pace with inflation, but it didn't raise fares at all from 2002 to 2007. Last year and this year saw 25-cent increases, and next year will see another one. Each 25 cents brings in another $10-12 million in annual revenue. But “raising fares during an economic recession is not a good thing to do,” says Metro general manager Kevin Desmond. “There's a point at which you reach diminishing returns.”
The situation could easily have been even worse. Without manna from Washington, the two-year deficit would have been $218 million. Metro is getting some $71 million in federal stimulus money, $50 million of which can shoveled into the revenue gap. The stimulus package “came just in the nick of time,” Desmond says.“
It may be, as Tolstoy wrote, that “every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” but public transit agencies are all financially unhappy in much the same way. “Every transit agency in the country” is in the same boat, Sims said.
The boat is big enough for New York subways, too. After a long-running battle in Albany, the New York legislature has finally passed a bailout for the metropolitan area's MTA transit system. The agency went hat in hand to the legislature, hoping for funds that would plug the gap between operating expenses and tax shortfalls in a dismal economy. The legislature, which had budget problems of its own, didn't exactly hurry to help. Faced with a demand to bail out public transportation in the big city, upstate legislators replied: How about the roads and bridges on which their own constituents rely? The upshot was a big zero.
The MTA was getting ready for a 30-percent fare hike on June 1. Then the legislature finally came through — deferring some decisions but averting the worst for the coming year. Fares will go up only a quarter. The legislature has made up the difference with a 12-county payroll tax, an increase in vehicle registration fees, and a 50-cent-per-ride taxi surcharge.
Metro should be so lucky. This year's Washington legislature actually passed a major transportation package, but “transportation” basically meant “roads.” The legislature didn't give Metro any state money, but it did give the King County Council and King County voters the tools to narrow, if not close, the gap between revenues and expenditures. The County Council can decide without a vote of the people to use 7.5 cents per $1,000 of property tax for transportation, 1 cent for transit improvements on the new 520 bridge and 6.5 cents for transit. (The 75 cents per $1,000 that the County was authorized to collect for the new ferry district — you may have forgotten that King County was now in the ferry business — was reduced to 7.5 cents.) And if the Council puts it on the ballot, the people can vote to pay another $20 a year for their vehicle license tabs, with all that new money going to transit.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Thu, May 14, 8:50 a.m. inappropriate
"The experience will be different on July 18, when Sound Transit opens its sleek new light rail service from downtown Seattle to Tukwila. (You always wanted to go to Tukwila, didn't you?) You won't have to wait at a grungy stop. You won't have to climb stairs to get on or off. You won't have to share waiting space or seats with drunks or mumblers."
Where did the author come up with this nonsense? All the light rail stops in the downtown tunnel are the same stops the buses use. These light rail stops will be just as "grungy" as the bus stops because they are exactly the same stops! How long does the author think it will take the other light rail stops to become "grungy"? Has he seen where those stops are? At the Lander Street light rail stop a couple of weeks ago, I saw a guy peeing on one of the poles which holds the overhead wires for the light rail, in broad daylight. Has the author seen what parts of town the light rail stops are located in? I can't wait for his first ride on the little trains. Should be a real eye-opener for him.
New buses are low-floor buses. You don't have to climb stairs to get on these new buses, particularly in the downtown bus tunnel. Has the author ever ridden a bus in the past couple of years?
"You won't have to share waiting space or seats with drunks or mumblers."??? Why not? Who does the author think is going to be riding the light rail, or hanging out at light rail stations? The same people who ride buses and hang out at bus stops, that's who!
The author seems to be living in a fantasy world.
About raising more revenue for buses: why should car owners pay higher license tabs to subsidize people who ride buses or trains? Let people who use transit pay their own way. Raise fares! We need all the revenues we can get from car owners to pay for roads, which, by the way, bus riders need also! How far could you get on a bus if there were not any roads?
Posted Thu, May 14, 9:20 a.m. inappropriate
Supposedly the arrival of light rail is going to free up buses. How big will the impact of this be on Metro's finances?
Also would there be a way for new development, for example the one mentioned in Issaquah, to pay fees that would cover bus service from that area? This would be the equivalent of an impact fee, just like some cities have charged for schools or other infrastructure. Maybe that's a way new development can be guaranteed bus service. Most developments though probably are not big enough to raise a significant amount of money. The exceptions might be that proposal in Snohomish county for the new city, or the possibly some places like Snoqualmie Ridge.
Posted Thu, May 14, 9:31 a.m. inappropriate
Ron Sims could have rescued his bus system had he actively campaigned against last years's transit (mostly rail) ballot measure. Instead, he quietly signaled his opposition. So now we are being taxed for a system that won't return any benefits for another 15 years, if even then. Let's hope his leadership style improves in DC. Back home we're being asked to elect a new county exec from a group that includes current county councilmembers who actively supported the ballot measure. Perhaps someone will ask them what they were doing when Metro tanked on their watch.
Posted Thu, May 14, 9:43 a.m. inappropriate
All of this goes back to the fact that we don't have the land use patters in much of the county that support transit use. Seattle and Bellevue are dense enough that transit service both comes efficient and practical. The problem with treating all of the urban growth area of king county like it is urban is that it that is a lie. Transit service should target these core areas and meet the demand most efficiently. In incessant focus on "equitably" spending transit dollar forces cash stripped transit agencies to operate in the least efficient way possible.
Hopefully at HUD Ron Sims will financially and systematically support development patters that support transit use. That is the only way that his vision will every become reality.
Posted Thu, May 14, 10:27 a.m. inappropriate
Lincoln says: "why should car owners pay higher license tabs to subsidize people who ride buses or trains?"
One simple reason is that you, as a driver, benefit from bus ridership. Take those hundreds of thousands of daily bus riders and put them in single-occupancy vehicles -- which would happen if bus fares rose as dramatically as you propose -- and your commute time gets significantly longer.
Not to mention that your driving is heavily subsidized as well. Are you also in favor of toll roads and bridges so the state can recover the true cost of building and maintenance?
Posted Thu, May 14, 10:30 a.m. inappropriate
It's odd that bus routes and bus ridership are considered a chicken-and-egg problem.
Here's the thinking that got us here... People should ride the bus all over our county (great!). In Seattle, people already ride the bus, so problem solved (huh?). Next, let's spread our vehicle resources out to enable those who may some day ride the bus (wait a minute!). Finally, let's subsidize - or outright pay for - high-density development that will fill the buses (really??).
Before we try and incubate new bus patronage, we should reward ridership with frequency and reliability. Whether we're talking about south end, east side, Capitol Hill, Bitter Lake, wherever. If a bus line is attracting customers, add more buses! Once it's running every 6 minutes, start looking at ways to insulate the bus from traffic variability so they don't end up three or four in a row. Let buses skip to the front of the line at traffic lights, take out parking for a bus lane, turn an alley into a busway, there's all kinds of ways to improve service on key routes.
And if we're going to create ridership, why don't we look at filling up buses offpeak? Maybe we could reward land use that draws people out on evenings and weekends? Furthermore, we should look at where most people are getting on and off, and make sure those spots are high-quality pedestrian environments. Are there sidewalks? Do people wait 3 minutes for a push-button green light? Does zoning stop entrepreneurs from trying to lighten the pocket book of those who alight from a bus? Are there safe, relaxing meeting places?
Posted Thu, May 14, 10:36 a.m. inappropriate
Transit-oriented development doesn't mean just jamming in high-density housing developments anywhere proximate to a transit stations - which is precisely what the bill that died would've REQUIRED. Stations are located with relationship to transportation routes - rail lines or freeways - without regard to the area's living environment. Those locations may or may not have good quality living conditions. (Do YOU want to live in high-density apartments abutting I-5?) Merely jamming in housing does not a neighborhood make and does nobody any good if it ends up being undesirable. It was not merely Seattle neighborhoods that were against this provision in the law - meanwhile, the environmental groups were panting over it, apparently with no regard whatsoever to coupling housing with a good living environment.
Posted Thu, May 14, 10:42 a.m. inappropriate
Lincoln needs to get out more. Everyone who's lived in an area with a good mass transit system knows that rail transportation is more comfortable and more convenient. The same will be true here, especially with a newly-built system.
Posted Thu, May 14, 11:47 a.m. inappropriate
"good mass transit system knows that rail transportation is more comfortable and more convenient."
More comfortable if you like to stand, I guess. ST expects most of its light rail riders to stand, while most bus riders get their own seat.
More convenient? Maybe if you live right next to a light rail station, and want to go somewhere right next to another light rail station. Light rail stations are about a mile apart. There are bus stops on about every other block along many routes. Guess that depends on how much you enjoy walking to and from light rail stations. Otherwise you are going to have to take a bus to get to a light rail station, anyway. So most people who will use light rail will still have to take buses on either or both ends of their trips.
The light rail trip from downtown to the airport will take longer than the 194 express bus. And the light rail station at the airport is about 1,000 feet from the terminal. How "convenient" will it be to have to drag your luggage all the way through the parking garage on foot between the light rail station and the terminal?
We will soon find out just how "comfortable and convenient" the new ST light rail is.
Posted Thu, May 14, 2:34 p.m. inappropriate
For all its possible flaws, at least light-rail trains will come on a predictable schedule, unlike buses. This is what Chuck Taylor had to say about trying to ride from Bryant to Colman Dock, and, the next day, to West Seattle: http://seattleposttimes.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/riding-the-bus-sucks-which-is-why-i-drove-my-suv-to-the-sustainable-west-seattle-festival-.html (or http://bit.ly/UIqRH)
Posted Thu, May 14, 4:12 p.m. inappropriate
"ST expects most of its light rail riders to stand..."
Let's do some math that's backed up by actual projections and find out what ST really expects.
Each Link Light Rail train car has 74 seats, and each train will have a minimum of two cars (http://soundtransit.org/x4306.xml), so each train will have 148 seats.
Given the projected headways, there will be about 120 trains in each direction every weekday (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/sc/plans/2009/012009-llr.html), which means 240 trains system-wide.
So we have 35,520 seats going back and forth.
According to this article, Sound Transit expects 26,000 riders each weekday. That works out to 108 riders per 148-seat train, clearly enough seating.
Of course us riders won't spread ourselves out that evenly, so let's consider most of Sound Transit's projected ridership of 26,000. I guess 50% plus one is most, so let's see if 13,001 riders will need to stand, meaning 12,999 seats are taken. At 148 seats per train, everyone would have to cram onto 88 trains for a majority to need to stand. During rush hours alone there will be about 100 trains (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/sc/plans/2009/012009-llr.html) – 50 in each direction, so I suppose it could happen if we all rode those trains, amd there are obviously other, weird combinations that would make it possible. It just seems unlikely, doesn't it?
And the 194 is quicker – but you can't get on it anywhere between downtown and the airport!
Posted Thu, May 14, 4:51 p.m. inappropriate
Just think of all that bus money sunk under Beacon Hill and now Capitol Hill...Sound Transit, how about some advocacy for the transit system people actually use...?
Posted Thu, May 14, 5:45 p.m. inappropriate
http://www.soundtransit.org/x4306.xml
According to Sound Transit, their light rail cars have a capacity of 200, with 74 seats. Thus, when Sound Transit light rail cars are "full" there will be 74 riders sitting and 126 riders standing on each car. To me, that means that more people will be standing than sitting on "full" light rail cars.
On articulated buses there are about 60 seats, and they have a capacity of about 90. So a "full" bus has 60 seated riders and 30 standing riders.
Of course, ST is lying about the capacity of their light rail cars. The actual official capacity of an ST light rail car is only 137. So, at the true capacity, less than half the riders would be standing.
I am just using Sound Transit's own "facts" when I say that most riders will be standing on "full" light rail cars according to Sound Transit.
We will all see soon enough.
You can't get on the light rail anywhere between downtown and the airport, either, except in Rainier Valley or on Beacon Hill. What percentage of trips to and from SeaTac airport do you think originate or end on Beacon Hill or in the Rainier Valley? One percent?
Or, put another way, what are the number of daily trips betweent the airport and Rainier Valley or Beacon Hill daily, compared to the number of trips between the airport and downtown daily? What is your guess?
Posted Thu, May 14, 6:12 p.m. inappropriate
Mike Draper sent this retort to the editor:
Come on, Mr Chasan. You said "The experience will be different on July 18, when Sound Transit opens its sleek new light rail service from downtown Seattle to Tukwila. (You always wanted to go to Tukwila, didn't you?) You won't have to wait at a grungy stop. You won't have to climb stairs to get on or off. You won't have to share waiting space or seats with drunks or mumblers."
I have taken the Metro bus #194 to Sea-Tac many times.
I have never waited at a grungy stop.
I did not climb stairs.
I did not have to share anything with drunks or mumblers.
The light rail will use the same 3rd Ave subway/tunnel as the bus.
Be fair. The bus is faster and more direct for the downtown-to-airport trip.
- Mike Draper
Posted Mon, May 18, 1:45 p.m. inappropriate
Nice save, Linc.
"ST expects most of its light rail riders to stand."
Then:
"...most riders will be standing on "full" light rail cars..."
And finally:
"Of course, ST is lying about the capacity of their light rail cars."
Of course!