Getting Bold about Bus Fares

But [MvB], the point you're missing is that even at $3.50 per way, under your model you're still just getting by with the system we have - not adding busses, not improving service. You're creating incentives to drive in the name of some Eyman-like no-tax funding scheme that will kill bus service. Again, please remember that Tim Eyman schemes got us into this mess.

Oh, and fuel is only about 13% of Metro's costs. So let's not pretend this 200% increase in fees is meant to make up for that.

MVB - regarding my comment

First with a hefty fare hike, not an anemic 25 cents. Then by identifying the weakest performing routes and cutting them to help the real workhouse routes. Metro must also use its fairly robust internal performance reporting system to better effect, re-calibrating schedules so they more often comport with reality

That is RTS.

In fully functional and faceted cities, you utilize a bus system as an in-expensive, expansive and elastic supplemental public transportation. You use the more expensive, trimmed, high density transit with rapid transit (rails).

Combined, you have a robust system that serves a wider spectrum and wider area.

@Charles, Ronald: I've lived in Seattle for 20 years. I don't think that during that time bus ridership as a proportion of geographic population served has gotten over 5%. My back-of-the-envelope estimates are that currently, if the bus is only used by people getting to and from work, the percentage is 10%. That's a false assumption, I think the real number is below 5%, but I point it out to show that low fares--which I think are historically behind us--only get so many people on the bus.

More to the point, low fares have created a second-class transportation system that just "gets you there." Not necessarily on time, and not in comfort. Its operational structure is built around getting a small percentage of people around Seattle, and it's so consistently strapped for cash, it can't even keep its route maps and schedules updated. Now what we're seeing is, the system is so fragile, it can't handle an increase of just 20% of that 5%. (We can add more buses, but we haven't allotted the extra money to run them on more expensive fuel; you can't run a transit system on money delivered via transit initiatives.)

I appreciate that bus service would be super convenient if it were free. I appreciate that higher fares might cut down on non-essential trips. But from where I'm sitting, I don't see a system that can adequately fund itself, and I don't believe that a non-bus-using 90% is ever going to tax itself heavily enough to support anything beyond a "gets you there" system.

Short-term, you will see higher fares, regardless. The only question is, how much higher? And is it worth it to change the fare structure so that bus riders--not non-bus-riders--are the primary stakeholders and can demand the kind of bus service they'd like?

Rebuilding the business model of Metro strikes me as an opportunity to rob the anti-transit crowd of their biggest, historically proven stick. But that's only if we're willing to look past leftie transit-funding dogma ("People should be glad to pay for it even if they don't use it!") and deal with realities that have dogged transportation funding for the past 40 years.

"Then bus transit will no longer be the red-headed stepchild of transportation choices--a money-losing drain on resources that drains more the more it gets used."

I think what you're being missed here is that bus transit is the red-headed stepchild of transportation choices because riding the bus sucks. Especially over long distances, which are the most expensive runs, and should not exist. Those should be covered by light and heavy rail with local buses running on electricity bringing riders to centralized stations and carrying people on local, in-city routes over short distances.

I'm sorry MvB, but I think you fell for the bait on this one. If this plan were enacted, we'd likely see massive drop offs in ridership, increased usage of cars and screams from the Right about how spending money on transit is a waste. Bye bye ST, Light Rail and even in-city buses.

The wheels on da bus go round & round.

Higher fares=fewer riders.

Fewer riders=lower revenues.

Lower revenues=fewer buses/less service.

Fewer buses/less service=fewer riders=lower revenue.

Lower revenue=need for more revenue=higher fares

On the other hand, more riders=more demand

more demand=need for more equipment=bigger budget

Bigger budget=need for higher fares ...

The wheels on da bus go round & round.

Answer: buses should be free (except downtown, where the charge should be $5 to keep vagrants off the system).

[MvB] Sure, many people will still ride the bus at double the fare. But many won't. [pfft]'s example is an extreme one, but take a couple that could drive in together. That's about $100/month for parking versus $150/month for bus fare at the current rate. Maybe a bit less with a pass, but my point is it's not tough to be pushed over the line.

@nerdseyeview

don't forget to factor in the actual daily cost of owning the car. it may not make up for the difference or it may, depending on the car.

eg. if you amortize a Honda Civic ($20K) over 10 years that's like $5-$8 dollars a day, depending on how much you assume for maintenance. and the owner of the car pays that every day regardless of days he's carpooling.

(it's actually even higher if you factor in the time-value of money which assumes you could invest the $20K and earn a few percent interest on it)

of course, if you buy used it's less, but a used car also won't last as long.

I don't know exactly how the math works out but people often forget that they paid for the car when they do transit math.

I read that article this morning and later today, I took my car downtown where I paid three bucks for parking. We had four people in the car, so even with gas, it's a cheaper proposition than taking the bus. It's always seemed wrong to me that it's cheaper to take your car and park downtown than it is to take the bus.

I know that civic funds come from different buckets, but it seems like increased parking rates could a)provide further incentive to ride the bus and b)subsidize those buses.

We're all in this together. Consumers over-spent on plasma TV's with home-equity loans on false valuations and the country underspent on infrastructure. We made our bed now we have to pay for it.

Either everybody should subsidize public transit through progressive incomes taxes OR they charge the true cost of ridership and then there needs to be a discount for low-income people to get passes. Either way seems to to work.

Then again, I'm no economist and sometimes I wonder why the people get to vote on every single issue. What's the point of elected leaders if we end up deciding all the legislation.

Maybe our legislative process needs to work more like "hot or not". Every new law goes out to the entire voting population as a "hot or not" poll.

@Matt G1: I'm voting for ST2 early and often. Don't worry about that!

Sure, I understand the price affects demand--but we do have some wiggle room here. I mean, there is a price for bus service, it's planned to go up, the only question is, how much? Metro blew the cost prediction last time, and now they've got to come back with a new hike.

I just think there's something worth considering in revisiting the pricing/business model of Metro. I don't know about $3.50. But maybe: for express buses to and from downtown during peak hours. For anyone who has to pay for parking downtown, $3.50 is about a half-hour worth of parking.

[MvB] Price wouldn't need to be the primary reason people take the bus for this to be a bad idea. Basic economics tells us that an increase of the price of an elastic good necessarily decreases its demand.

Remember that back in 1998 we reduced, then in 1999 removed the vehicle excise tax that funds busses. Imagine the great service we'd have right now if we hadn't done that (don't forget it takes a good 7 years to start new bus service). Perhaps people won't want to tax themselves to add bus service. But either way shouldn't they be the ones to decide?

If you really want more busses, vote for ST2. There are millions of dollars worth of busses in that package, all of which will be on the road long before Metro can increase fares, raise funds, and order busses.

@thename: that's a reasonable fear to have. And yes, I think it's clear that at least part of the idea is to open the door wider to private bus companies. I don't know if I'm afraid of that or not, yet. The danger is that public transit would get muscled out of any lucrative area, and get stuck with the pure money-losing propositions.

If you could get that progressive taxifying thing to pass, I'd be up for it. And I think it's already past time to create a discount bus pass for anyone who can demonstrate they earn below a certain amount.

@MvB: I fear that raising fares along with taxes to get Metro out of its pending red is just one more giant stick with which anti-transit, pro-car folks will add to their arsenal of straw men, ideological muckraking, and elitist NIMBY-ism. It all points to a privatized,

I'd suggest a different route: higher, progressive income/property taxation along with the same/lower fares. This removes the hypothetical stealing by upper-middle-class busriders and keeping the deal for low-income riders. Of course, tax increases for any reason save stadiums seem to be a third rail around here.

Any other bus riders willing to pay more in taxes to keep their buses running? Or is it just me?

@Matt G1: I'm not sure I can answer your question, since we seem to disagree on whether price is the primary reason people ride or don't ride the bus. I do know that bus ridership has increased through the last two fare increases. I'm not sure that if we all agreed to raise taxes, we wouldn't still have a transit system in crisis if significant gains in ridership outstrip funding. (We all just agreed to raise taxes to augment service last year, and now Metro wants to use some of that money to pay for its current operations.) Given that, and that lightrail is probably on the ballot again this year, I doubt there's much more tax raising to do. Pragmatically, I think looking at a substantial fare increase is probably worth talking about.

Great comment, [thename].

[MvB], how will raising fares fix any of the problems you mention in a way that raising taxes won't? Actually, raising fares will reduce reliability, since there will be more cars on the road.

@thename: buses drive on those same sprawl-assisting roads, right? It's not completely black and white.

Yes, it's apparent Rosenberg would like to open up public transit to private competition. But: I can think of people who'd pay $5 for an upscale coach to their Eastside job. It still gets them out of their cars. And asking people to pay for boarding costs is not the same as saying the public system would be unsubsidized. The question is whether by offering "accessibility" to all in the form of low fares, those who can afford to pay more are getting more of a deal than the working poor.

Finally, no matter how you slice it, the current system is in crisis. Fares are going up. Taxes are going up.

Seriously folks? Did nobody pretty much notice that the $3.50 fares is basically to make it so transit'd be appealing to the new, private contractors he wants to sell the system to? Sounds great! I can't wait to pay $3.50+ a trip for my trip on the SAFECO-Yellow Cab Shared Transportation Systems, LLC bus!

It's all about this idea that people who don't ride the bus shouldn't have to pay for it. But all of us with property (with or without cars) should have to pay for expanding and maintaining their suburb-expanding, sprawl-assisting roads? Sounds fair to me.

I keep seeing the same comments about "increased demand" driving the operating costs up. How can this be though? Just because my beloved 5:00pm 19 is now a standing room only ride much of the way now, they haven't ADDED a bus, or put bigger buses on the route. How have costs (besides fuel)gone up?

Also: I'd gladly pay $3.50 if it meant I could be more certain I wasn't sitting in something nasty on the seats. For a big bold increase, I want a big clean bus.

@Simonian: it'd be a huge change, yes. But if you think Metro is broken (as a public transit system, as opposed to a way for low-income people to get around), then a big change is needed. If Metro provided real data about when and how many people used buses, and where they travel to, we might be able to settle whether it'd be a wash or not. I can't say--I'm only assuming that the majority of bus boardings occur as people go to and from work, rather than toodle around neighborhood.

@kasa: the reduced rate fare is key--personally I'm happy with tax money subsidizing that, rather than keeping rates artificially low for people who can afford to pay market rate so that low-income people can afford the bus, too.

@MattG1: actually, normally I agree. In the past, I've argued that the bus might as well be free because of the gains you get from its use. However, there are two caveats: 1) fuel costs are way up, and non-market-reflective pricing is digging a huge hole for all of transit. 2) I think price is the least of the ridership barriers, behind comfort, convenience, and reliability--if higher fares can improve those, it might be worth it.

@romulus: well, I'm using "commuters" for anyone who could use a bus to get to work, say from Rainier Valley or Montlake to downtown. But yes, part of the solution is for the different agencies to focus on what they're best at, and price accordingly. Actually a while ago Seattlest was wondering why the Free Ride Zone is free--we were told it helps get buses in and out of the central core faster. But surely that can be dealt with another way.

@Troy: I wouldn't say that from just this article. I think the issue is that Metro is going broke as is, and their strategy is just to keep bailing.

@pfft: yeah, I think you're right about the rise in boarding cost, unfortunately. But that would still be good to know. If you could take a cab for close to what it would cost to take a bus, something ain't right.

I heard a radio segment the other day where some official from Metro was saying that their costs have soared this year due to fuel costs as well as increased demand (although I'm not sure increased demand increases the per boarding cost).

Anyway, I assume that $3.66 number is probably way higher now and they are much further in the red per boarding than they were in 2006.

Wait.... isn't what he proposing to turn Metro into is a Rapid Transit System?

A rose by any other name, is still a fucking rose.

It would focus primarily on moving commuters to and from work, quickly and reliably.

But that's basically Sound Transit's existing purpose. Metro doesn't belong in the same space. That's why we have both systems. ST for commuting, MT for getting around.

Here's a different idea: Metro should cut out its own long-trip commuter routes and leave that effort to ST so it can focus on shorter-trip fares. Aren't shorter trip fares more lucrative anyway?

I'm surprised that I haven't heard anyone suggest eliminating the downtown Ride Free Area, or switching it from free to a flat reduced fare (perhaps free only for those with the reduced rate passes). That seems like a cash cow waiting to be milked.

I'm still waiting for Cascadia to put out a white paper on whether the Earth is flat or not.

They aren't entirely clear on that one.

I’m not a big fan of fare increases - I think it discourages ridership. It would be one thing if riding a bus only benefits the person riding, but every person we get on the bus reduces everyone’s traffic, road costs, air pollution, fuel prices, etc. I think taxes should pay for bus infrastructure (new/replacement busses, stations, wire, drivers, etc.) and fares should pay for consumables (fuel, maintenance). Because use it or not, every tax payer is paying for access to a network of busses.

I'm so happy you mentioned a reduced-rate fare! I'm guessing the reason fare has been so low for so long is that for years the system has been primarily serving the low-income who couldn't afford to commute any other way. And now the reason have increased demand is because middle and higher income folks are trying to save money or be green or whatever by taking the bus - but it's not the necessity it is for lower income people.

The thing with a reduced income fare system is that it would take awhile to get that infrastructure in place, and without it and immediate jump would be really, really painful for a lot of people.

So if Metro were to concentrate its efforts on the workhorse routes, wouldn't that be at the expense of the neighborhoods and therefore increase the use of single occupancy vehicles in those areas? The high fare would most likely also decrease the number of people using the bus for short trips unless more people could be convinced to buy passes. I suppose that environmentally this might be an improvement, or at least a wash, by getting more people into buses during commute hours and perhaps lessening congestion. But there would be a hell of a commotion during the transition between the operating theories, reduced fare options or not.