Comments on: Metro’s 40/40/20 rule

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:55:00 +0000

The frustrating thing about this rule is that it covers bus hours, not bus costs.

That is, when the 8 is packed, it’s probably close to covering its costs and might even make money for Metro. On the other hand, a random 1/4 full Issaquah bus has a long route to cover and fewer people contributing — its net cost is much higher per bus hour.

I have no problem with making sure new bus costs are divided in proportion to the population. But that would give very different results from making sure new bus hours are proportionally divided.

By: daimajin

daimajin — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:02:00 +0000

Not for Metro, but I know Microsoft pays for some of Sound Transits costs of running the 545.

And I think the “Boeing” buses to Boeing field and Renton are partly paid for by Boeing.

By: nl

nl — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:44:00 +0000

Interesting point Brad, I was looking at the Buschick blog a while back and there was a topic based on monitoring people and buses. Metro, apparently doesn’t do this as often as we may think although I am not too sure on this. When someone pays fare, or swipes their transit card of choice, it doesn’t register as a head count of who gets on the bus. It gets tricky too with routes entering the free ride zone as well. When they do monitor how many people are using a particular route, they have a mat that is apparently on the 1st step of the bus that counts people boarding. However, like you, it makes me wonder if this is true, are we spending more where people aren’t than where they are? It seems as though the 33 is packed on Sunday nights when I do ride. I don’t know about the Issaquah bus, but I am guessing probably not? If the 20 of the 40-40-20 is paying more then it seems unfair not to give them more. I have noticed too recently with Children’s Hospital partnering up with Metro that they will in turn get more bus service. I think this is a great idea, especially for the financial part to Metro, however does that cut other potential routes that could have been helped out? Have you heard of anything about that D?

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:16:00 +0000

Thanks for the post. I had never heard a clear answer on why the 40/40/20 rule exists. I can see building out service hours and creating induced demand in the other subareas. Although the Seattle subarea is 35% of the population, I’m curious what percentage of total Metro boardings are within the subarea. It seems like people are much more likely to be taking transit within this subarea, and thus higher service hours in this subarea would be warranted. People within this subarea are MUCH more likely to not have a car and take transit for non-commute trips.

I’m a semi-regular Metro rider who lives on the Hill, and I’ve noticed buses (particularly the 8) have been a lot more crowded the last few months, even at non-peak hours. (For example, standing room only at 8pm on a Sunday). I’d rather see service hours where the riders are, than making sure there are 1/4 full buses to the suburbs running every half-hour during non-commute hours. (Not to say they shouldn’t have service– they should– but if Seattle buses are running at capacity, shouldn’t we make more capacity for transit riders in the area where the capacity is needed? Are Sunday night buses to Issaquah standing room only?)