Today both the Seattle Times and P-I have pieces up about the end (at least for now) of Metro shuttle service to Seahawks games. First, I want to say this is a ridiculous issue. This is the federal government cutting local transit service off at the knees with the pretend “let’s see what happens if we privatize something” attitude that simply ignores everything we’ve learned from the last century of transportation. It’s like selling the only bridge to an island to a private company, then tolling it to “see if it gets any revenue”. It’s a handout to a private company at the expense of the users.
That said, both articles completely ignore the existence of Sounder service to regular season games. An earlier P-I article only mentions Sounder to say that it won’t serve the upcoming pre-season game – that’s great, Sounder has never served pre-season games. The implication that this is a change from the status quo is ridiculous.
Both articles imply that there’s no transit service to Seahawks games anymore, period. Bending over backwards to use the term “transit shuttle service” or “bus trip” seems to me like a pretty dishonest way of avoiding mentioning Sounder – when Sounder will serve every regular season Sunday home game, just as it has for years. Perhaps they don’t mention it because Sounder costs far less than the new Starline service? With free parking at Everett, Tacoma, and many points in between? We can’t have mass transit undercutting private businesses, now, can we?
Here’s contact info for the authors. Perhaps we could mention to them (politely, please) that it’s a little odd that Sounder game service goes almost entirely unmentioned?
Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com
Larry Lange can be reached at 206-448-8313 or larrylange@seattlepi.com.
I’m a little shocked that there isn’t more emphasis in the articles on the massive cost increase to riders. I feel like that’s the biggest story.
I’m pretty sure the user base of the Metro gameday service and the user base for Sounder gameday service don’t overlap very much.
That’s like saying “The person who took the bus this morning and the person who took the train this morning are different people.” While it’s true today, taking away the bus makes for a pretty different story tomorrow. Someone in Federal Way might drive to Kent. Someone in Shoreline might drive to Edmonds. Sure, it might involve driving the wrong direction a couple of miles, but it’s still a lot cheaper than driving downtown!
Legalized extortion, and the FTA is using the bus replacement money and other money as leverage to see how far the rule goes. I think using luxury coaches like Starline for a service a Transit Bus will work better on, is a bad idea. You would expect the bus to do a rapid unload, you need more than the one door these buses Starline uses have, to make that happen.
Better yet, just email them the link http://seattletransitblog
;)
add .com
to make sure they’re going to the right place ;)
Perhaps metro/ST should charge starline to utilize their park and ride facilities…
Starline isn’t actually stopping in the P&Rs (which is part of what will make it fail).
Or open a competing garage next to each park-and-ride, therefore requiring them to close down the park-and-rides on game days ;-)
Out of town, but I’d like to see someone do this story some real justice.
I think the Seahawks are just using this as a reason to save money. If the Huskies and the M’s could continue Metro service after accepting ‘inadequate bids’, why can’t the Hawks?
Someone is not telling the truth.
There is a story here, but the major media won’t touch it because they don’t want their football beat reporters getting grief just as the season is getting started.
Key questions: Why are the other teams able to continue Metro service? What was different about those other proposals? Does it matter that the Seahawks own most of the parking lots near the stadium? When did the Seahawks get the bid from the carrier? Why did they just now decide to make the announcement?
This is a real story. Don’t let it get swept under the rug, guys.
Brad, the Seahawks accepted the offer because they HAVE to, despite the fact that Metro can run the shuttles cheaper and more efficiently. The issue is not an “inadaquate bid”; the new federal regulations require the service to be operated by a contractor if there is ANY bid. With the bid, it was either shuttle service or no shuttle service.
The Mariners got a special exception to policy from the FTA to continue the shuttles. No word on the service for Husky games, but the only way I’ve ever gotten to a Husky game is by Metro shuttle.
That’s not true. The Seahawks initially rejected the original bid as ‘inadequate’. Then, suddenly, in the matter of a few days, there is another bid, and its deemed ‘adequate;’?
There’s no time for a football team to do sufficient due diligence to determine a transit bid’s effectiveness/safety/quality/etc.
This falls squarely on the Hawks, but no one wants to say so.
Again, let’s assume the same company bid for the Hawks/Huskies/M’s. Yet two of those chose the deem them inadequate and the other rolled over. I think it’s a cost saving measure and its a huge set-back for transit in this city. Many people’s first ride on a bus is the Seahawk shuttle.
$25? You gotta be kidding me.
Brad, read the Times article again. The Seahawks still haven’t accepted the bid, which is why it will cost $12.50 instead of the $10 in their original bid—the Seahawks won’t be giving any subsidy to this bus service. But, because Starline never retracted its bid, Metro is prohibited from offering any service.
The Huskies and Mariners will be in the same situation next season, and will probably lose their Metro service.
Again, sorry….wrong!
(actually, brad, he’s right. -Ben)
This law came into effect in April. All 3 teams (M’s, Huskies, Hawks) had to put the service out to bid. All 3 did that. (Remember the M’s stating a few months back that the service might be canceled late THIS summer?)
So all 3 received bid. And the Huskies and M’s rejected those bids and continued the Metro service. Only the Hawks chose to cut the service altogether. WHY?
Brad,
Where are you getting your facts? According to a past Times article, FTA gave a 60-day waiver to the Mariners and then an exemption for the whole season because of the inadequacy of the bids. See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008026797_mariners01m.html
Please read the regulation here and see if what you keep asserting is correct: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-18444.htm
Metro can’t re-enter the picture after the bid is rejected. The only way Metro can provide the service is if there are NO bids. The Mariners use of Metro is a one-time deal; the rule doesn’t support it.
Lastly, where have you heard that the Huskies has opened bids, rejected all offers, and then decided to continue with Metro? If it is true, it too is an act unsupported by the Bush Administrations’ regs.
ericn is correct.
The link above is more recent (amendments to the final rule). The complete rule promulgated back in January and effective April 30 can be found here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/08-86.htm
I think an important unanswered question here is why Starline wants to charge so much money. The Times article says that the total cost of last year’s service was $257,000. There were 29,244 round-trip riders, which equates to $175,464 in fares. Assuming the number of riders stayed constant, a fare of $4.41 would cover all of the costs with no Seahawks subsidy—that’s just about a third of Starline’s cost!
I think you forgot the small factor of profit. Being that they’re the only bid for a required job, profit over 3x costs sounds about right.
Two other factors to add to Matt’s observation: 1) Metro is only charging for operating costs, no capital costs. Any private company is using the revenue received to pay for fleet replacement (or debt financing of the fleet). 2) Starline’s fleet generally had less seats than Metro articulated coaches. So that means a higher ratio of drivers per service delivered.
The cost to operate a new service is much higher than the cost to operate service you already have bases and staff for. For Metro, this is just a matter of operating costs and equipment depreciation, because they already have the infrastructure.
Typical Fed move
Privatization bad deal
Price went through the roof!
More people will drive
Clogging roads and parking lots
I will not do that
Tried the scheduled routes
Late to game ’cause bus is full
Others had same thought
Get out of night game
Wait one hour for bus home
Then two…first one full
Need some added runs
Will Metro send more buses?
Not very likely!
[...] may remember that George Bush, Mary Peters, et al. implemented an immensely stupid rule that transit agencies cannot provide game-day service to sporting events if any private operator is [...]