The Washington Policy Center has published a detailed policy brief on King County's "Transit Now" proposal, on the November ballot. If passed, the measure would impose a permanent 0.1% hike in the sales tax to subsidize additional bus service. The Transit Now tax would be on top of the gas tax, Sound Transit, RTID, Seattle streets and trees levy, and whatever we'll pay to fix the Viaduct and 520 bridge. The WPC points out that similar recent transit measures have failed to deliver on their promises:
In 2000, County officials promised voters 575,000 hours of new bus service in exchange for a 0.2% increase in the sales tax. Metro has only delivered 203,006 hours of new service. Under Transit Now, compared with the 2000 proposal, Metro says it will provide three times more service for half as much money.Read the whole thing.
Here's the question I posed to ST Chairman Ladenburg: Sound Transit and Pierce Transit operate Express Bus service that duplicates within ONE BLOCK the service provided by the Tacoma Link Light Rail. Sound Transit operates Express Bus service that duplicates Light Rail? Light Rail is "up and running" so why continue running Express Buses to 10th & Commerce while other parts of the City are either un-served or are under served.
The answer I get is that people like choices, well let's see riders to 10th & Commerce get multiple choices regarding public transportation and people in other areas get the choice of walking or staying home. Some Choice!!!!
Wouldn't those service hours (4500+) be better used providing service where there isn't any or augmenting service to an area that is under served?
Oh I failed to mention City and County Council Members, their relatives and close business associates are invested in Condominium and other projects that lie along the Light Rail route and benefit from multiple layers of publicly subsidized transportation options, if there is substandard service in your neighborhood .....follow the money and it will lead straight to your local elected official's pockets.
This summer, Metro had to cancel many more trips than average -- mainly because there was no one to drive them. Sure there are other problems -- sometimes it is a shortage of equipment during peak times, but manpower is the big issue.
Posted by: RadioMattM on September 22, 2006 11:41 AMI am all for adding more buses because that would provide much more flexibility than a fixed rail system. Getting more drivers would indeed be key, but I don't know if Metro is willing to change to make it happen. Right now you can only start as a part time driver and hope to become a full time operator. And some routes just aren't nice to have. Most of us would never pick up some of the people who board the buses. I also think getting rid of the free ride zone would help, but I don't know if that will ever happen.
Posted by: Burdabee on September 22, 2006 12:03 PMI am tempted to believe that the system as a whole provides no decrease in the use of gas, oil, and other petroleum products PER rider. At least in a private car, the car is always transporting someone. Many times, buses do not have anyone on them, are on training runs, are returning to base, and so on.
Does anyone have any information on, say, the number of gallons of fuel used in a week by the entire Metro bus system, and the number of actual riders in that same week?
Posted by: NoLongerABusRider on September 22, 2006 01:13 PMA while ago there were ads on the busses saying that a bus carries 65 people. That may be true, but that happens a small percentage of the time.
Posted by: RadioMattM on September 22, 2006 01:53 PMIf you watch the Metro-28 bus from, say, Market-to-downtown, it is (or should bloody well be) a sensible alternative. The buses are always half-full or better, with lots of people getting on and off.
Unfortunately, there's the other 2/3 of the route. 1/3 is probably 'ok, I guess'. Then there's the bus driving down near the shore all the way up near 130th. The bus is empty, and driving around on roads that don't even have enough traffic to get striping or curbs. Let alone get called 'arterials'.
This third is nuts. And all the expansions seem to focus on expanding service in that sort of area. More trips, longer routes, etc.
Posted by: Al on September 22, 2006 05:20 PM