The Seattle Times editorial page proposes lowering bus fares as a comparatively cost effective way of addressing congestion. Interesting. I'm open to a lot of ideas given the area's inability to get moving on anything else. I'd also like to hear the argument against the idea.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 20, 2007 07:17 AM | Email ThisAfter all, the fare box covers just a small fraction of the actual cost of the ride; go ahead and make it free for a year, and we'll see just how many people will actually end up using transit in the best case - zero cost.
And then we'd have some solid baseline ridership data for future transit proposals...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 20, 2007 07:30 AMIt's obvious that the current King County regime desires that unaccountable planners acquire ever increasing power over economic decisions. We may expect gimmicks like 'free' busses (I ride it, you pay for it) in our lefty future, but we shouldn't be surprised when we lose, little by little, our decision making power over our own economic lives.
The salami model - as used by Chavez to erode to zero the democratic institutions of Venezuela.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 20, 2007 07:53 AMDecrease the fares = increased ridership = press releases of "studies" about increased ridership = less parking spaces in Seattle = screams of "GET OUT OF YOUR CAR" = more TAXES for more bus lanes/HOV's = more gridlock because thinking, rational people know they need and want the freedom of their cars and will be locked in traffic behind the damned buses.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2007 08:24 AMThe trebling of gas prices in the last 10 years has shown that transportation costs are very elastic. People will pay because quite frankly, it's such as small part of income even at the higher price.
Letting "riders" share more of the cost of public transit gives them more of a say in how Metro is run. Instead of being a bureaucratic organization that has to connive its funding with crazy voter placating "light rail" it can concentrate on the fundamentals of providing local bus and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) services tailored to the customer -- not the planner.
Oh yeah. Poor people. Use a Section 8 type program. For people below the poverty line, they get a bus pass prorated to an affordable price.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 20, 2007 09:03 AMGood! Get the local yokels OUT of the transpo picture.
I like the sound of this bill. The fact that appointees on a commission set the toll rates is no big deal. They are not going to go wacky on everybody.
What is intolerable and abusive is the situation that arises when political appointees have unfettered SPENDING power. Examples include Seattle Monorail Project and Sound Transit. The lege should take Sound Transit out back and off it next session for THAT reason.
Having toll rates set by appointees is no big deal. Having users pay for highway upgrades is entirely appropriate. No way should any of those funds go to light rail or passenger ferries though.
Posted by: Dr. Frankenschteen on November 20, 2007 09:15 AMYou want to talk baout people who need a bath, try riding the system in LA. Gang members just love it. Great place to rob or use to go from one spot to another to sell drugs.
One thing I did notice that NO women riding these trains, wore no rings or jewery.
That might give you an idea about it.
I've been on it 4 times. Never again.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2007 09:40 AMAdd more frequent buses to speed the system up and I will more than gladly get back on the bus.
Posted by: Carl on November 20, 2007 09:52 AMIn Germany, all of the transit options work quite well. The key to increased ridership according to the Germans is: the vehicle and riders need to be reasonably clean, and the level of conduct needs to be civilized. And this needs to be enforced. Near-invalid Grannies hobbling along, unattended minor children, large groups of kids with one adult, grocery shoppers, virtually every demographic other than Fat Cat are reasonably well represented on German transit.
In (and near) Seattle, the buses work fine if you need the transportation. And they work fine if you're reasonably self-confident and fit.
But your goal is to make it safe enough that un-attended low-teens, the elderly, grocery shoppers all feel fine.
In Germany, the driver can cite passengers directly. Here, nothing happens until there is a full-blown fist fight. And unless a weapon is drawn, they're mostly just asked to leave. "Take the next bus!" And this is about once per week during the return commuting hours.
Posted by: Al on November 20, 2007 10:04 AMIf you want to make busses more attractive, make them cost more (a whole lot more) to ride so that they can all be made clean, attractive and safe and then improve the time structure with more targeted stops and special lanes for them only. When women feel safe riding any route in town at any time of day or night, in an acceptable travel time, only then will mass transportation be a viable option.
But I don't think that Metro or Sound Transit or Community Transit can do it. They haven't the smarts or the will. They are locked into that "cheaper is better" mindset.
**Hello? Anyone there?**
MSFT gives free bus passes to all FTE's, if they only request them; in five years, Microsoft has given these to the exact same percentage of FTE's.
Posted by: Todd Herman on November 20, 2007 10:36 AMFurther, the overall tolerance level for the bums, psychos and druggies has to go WAY down, as in that just don't happen anymore. Cut all city, state, and if they get it, federal funding for the groups that make bank off of the "homeless." Do what Tacoma does and limit the hours that they can panhandle. Put those sidewalk ambassadors that otherwise do jack to work advising folks not to pass out cash to beggars. Ban those "tent city" guilt trips that rove around the county. And those are just a few of the ways off the top of me head to cut this problem down to size. Once that's done, maybe, just MAYBE the buses will be safe for gramma and the kiddies, but not before.
But I know better; none of the above will ever happen, unless MANY more bodies start droppin' than we've had in Seattle lately, and they can be directly traced back to the bums, druggies and nutjobs. Between the bleeding hearts and the apathetic elitists, this city will continue to spiral down till it hits rock bottom, a crash I sincerely hope I won't be around to witness.
Posted by: DarkHawke on November 20, 2007 11:20 AMAccordingly, the Times, being the community leaders that they are, surely should drop its subscription and advertising rates to zero in order to increase readership.
While we are at it, let's all jump on the universal health care bandwagon so that too is free.
Why stop there?
Safeway should remove it's checkstands and just give away food to all.
Let's dump twnety dollar bills out of airplanes.
Just in case anyone is interested, the Soviets tried all this, and, boy did it work out swell for them.....
Idiots......
Posted by: Hank on November 20, 2007 12:14 PMhttp://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
Within a decade, we could be independent of Middle East oil, dramatically decrease carbon emissions, and have what we want (personal transportation). Its just not cars, either, the Home Energy Station Honda is working on can also help with Home energy demands. Too bad we can't test them out in our area, yet.
Posted by: tc on November 20, 2007 01:00 PMYou are a dumbass. We pay for roads in many different ways, they sure as hell are not free.
Posted by: REBEL on November 20, 2007 01:01 PMWOW dude, I don't know what to say. Free roads?
Don't we all wish, that way our fuel tax would drop.
Do you even drive?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 20, 2007 01:20 PMInstead, only tolls and gas taxes should be used to pay for roads. AND tolls and taxes should NOT subsidize buses, ferries and rail, instead, fares should cover the costs of these modes of transportation. Bus fares should go up, not down.
Currently, road users are being subsidized by those who don't use them quite as much. This IS an injustice, and distorts the free market. But bus users are also being subsidized, and not all of these are poor.
Lefties hate the idea of subsidizing roads, because they want to force more people to take socialized transit modes like buses and trains. But the amazing thing is, lefties tend not to advocate increasing gas taxes because gas demand is very inelastic, and it winds up being a "regressive" tax! They are really on the horns of a dillemma.
The solution, if you want to provide welfare to the poor, is to give a means-tested bus pass or gas-tax exemption to the poor. I might be in favor of the bus pass, but not the gas-tax exemption.
But Hank is basically right @21.
I.S. @2 and Ragnar @4 are right on target.
If you agree with me, then perhaps you should check out Ron Paul for President... :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 20, 2007 01:48 PMBruce: You forgot to account for the benefits those roads bring to everyone who uses them, and to everyone whose goods are delivered on them, and to everyone whose services arrive on them, and to everyone who isn't marooned by a fixed rail network which can't go where the roads do.
Those benefits are far greater than the billions our country spends on building and mainting those roads. And the users of the roads get largely a free choice of where and when they'll go - a feature not granted by any other form of transportation.
Or are you such a PC absolutist that you propose making the whole country road-free?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 20, 2007 03:08 PMLowering bus fares to zero wouldn't solve the problem. Cars & the privacy they afford, even with congestion, are still the mode of choice.
Posted by: Clean House on November 20, 2007 03:11 PMThis is a Lose-Lose proposition for the taxpayers. The taxpayers already subsidize bus rider ship to the tune of $2.50 per rider, per boarding. If we lower the fares...it will increase the burden on taxpayers. The more people that ride the buses the higher our taxes go.
I must admit that subsidizing the buses is far superior and money better spent that the rail options.
Sound Transit Sounder trains are heavily subsidized...$35,000 per rider per year...the Tacoma Link is taxpayer subsidized $5.70 per boarding.
$225,000 for a new bus...$50,000 per year for a driver to drive it...$10,000 per year for fuel & maintenance... this seems a more reasonable expenditure of our transit tax dollars. We can put one bus on line for the same cost as NINE Sounder riders...using Sound Transits own numbers we could put... 667 NEW BUSES ON LINES EACH YEAR... on our streets for the same cost as 20 miles of Sounder Trains and Light Rail.
It will costs the taxpayer the same amount of bucks...and in fifty years when our bonds will be paid off...we will all be working for Sound Transit. Win-Win!!!
Torture the 90% majority, subsidize the 10% minority!
To quote a famous American with his own holiday:
I have a dream......
transportation planners, journalists, Sound Transit big wigs, light rail wet dreamers: Tree, Rope......some assembly required.
Posted by: Hank on November 20, 2007 03:21 PMExcuse me, do YOU benefit when Safeway gets fresh milk delivered everyday?
We ALL use roads, whether we ride the bus or not because of food and goods we use are transported on them daily.
We ALL use roads, whether we ride the bus or not because we enjoy police and fire protection.
We ALL use roads, whether we ride the bus or not because we like our garbage picked up and our mail delivered.
We ALL use roads, whether we ride the bus or not because we like our repairmen to come to us, we like our kids to get to school and our UPS man.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 20, 2007 06:27 PMIf the roads are paid for strictly by their users, at a price that reflects the cost and maintenance of those roads, the "goods" that those roads enable will be paid for by each of those benefiting by those roads.
That way, roads that are functional and useful will remain, or be expanded. Those roads that are less useful, or more costly than the benefits they provide, will diminish or disappear.
This nations railroad network, privately owned and therefore subject to real economic tests, constricted as less economically viable lines were shed. At the same time, those lines that are valuable continue to grow with added investment.
Let's do the same with our road system, toll their use with great specificity - those roads that are valuable will see more investment - those that are not, will see proportionally less maintenance and investment, and perhaps either wither away or be privatized and paid for their limited users.
I pay directly for the first 1000 feet of road from my house, the benefits I derive from it are more important to me than the rest of the public and so I, rather than you, pay for it. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: BA on November 20, 2007 08:35 PMSouthwest Air gets to offer local bus transportation
and/or
Amazon/Starbucks do same...
Wouldn't it be wonderful, even if not cheap..
...on time
...schedules you can understand
...routes that get filled up
...routes that make sense
...poorly dressed, poorly behaved customers are kicked off
They want the truth? They can't handle the truth.
Posted by: cars_r_us on November 21, 2007 06:53 AMThe swiss live in a highly population dense region in the valleys between mountains. They have an intensly local and distributed political system, which is even more decentralized than ours is, and is even more individualistic. (Each Swiss male learns to use a gun and the Swiss do not engage in entangling alliances...)
Neither the Swiss nor Disney would take on the project of putting rail in to King County. Disney wouldn't do it because it would never make money. The Swiss would not do it because it makes no logical sense. We do not have the population density required. Japan, the Eastern Seaboard of the US, some cities in India, and certain European regions do. But most of America is the land of sprawl and wide-open spaces. This is why we love America, and why rail will seldom make sense here.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 21, 2007 09:16 PM