Comments on: Ron Sims’ plan to save Metro

By: Reminder: Metro Fares Increase on Feb 1st - Seattle Transit Blog

Reminder: Metro Fares Increase on Feb 1st - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:31:16 +0000

[...] Reminder: Metro Fares Increase on Feb 1st by John Jensen Just a quick reminder that Metro bus fares are set to increase by a quarter starting next Sunday, February 1st. Peak one-zone trips will now run an even $2.00, while two-zone trips will cost $2.50. Off-peak fare will be $1.75. You can find more information in a flyer that Metro has put together (pdf). This fare increase will be followed by another 25-cent increase in January of next year, in an effort to shore up recent budgetary problems. [...]

By: Tunnel it is - Seattle Transit Blog

Tunnel it is - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:08:56 +0000

[...] city funding that hasn’t been raised, and some King County money for transit. And we all know how much money King County [...]

By: Wes

Wes — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:18:37 +0000

“a) Improving conditions for New York City’s pedestrians, cyclists and bus riders is a Communist plot. Or,
b) The change that Sadik-Khan is bringing to New York City’s streets is akin to the Russian Revolution.”

http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/08/27/is-nycs-sustainable-streets-plan-a-communist-plot/

Why are buses, sidewalks, and bikelanes tools of social engineering and roads and parking lots are as American as apple pie?

By: Wes

Wes — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:55:19 +0000

You have a point, however, my stubbornness in this topic may not let me follow. I’m not so sure how much I want to support, by taking into consideration, this hypocrisy that I am well aware is espoused by our fearless government leaders, trumpeted by our media, and passed on with very little understanding by every individual citizen in this country.

By: Morgan Wick

Morgan Wick — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:08:46 +0000

Sims should consider getting some CNG or biofuel-based buses to reduce fuel costs. Oh wait, I’m stating the obvious. Hopefully he can find the money for it.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:55:22 +0000

“start regulating their developers and how they lay out their street grids” Good luck getting that passed in every one of our scores of suburban / exurban towns. Even a grid system won’t make sprawl walkable or dense (though it helps some). Sprawl will end when we stop building new roads.

“sprawl will happen regardless even if you subsidize a rail line” But not without parking. Again, cars make sprawl. Stop making it more convenient for people to drive than to walk, and they’ll choose to live in walkable communities.

“Streetcar suburbs in Seattle illustrate this” On the contrary, Streetcar suburbs are far from sprawl. Houses are close together (generally 30′ wide lots), and stores and services are a quick walk away (Fremont, Queen Anne, Ballard, etc.).

By: Daniel K

Daniel K — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:43:43 +0000

Brian, what is it about this area that makes it so different? Seriously. Charging for parking, $1 a day, to help subsidize the expensive lots is something that people deal with in city after city. It is a totally appropriate use fee. A 350 car lot could bring in $100,000 a year if people paid $1 a day. Multiple that by all the lots out there and that’s a pretty penny Metro could be bringing in each year.

By: Daniel K

Daniel K — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:35:43 +0000

I meant CTA Park & Rides, of course.

By: Daniel K

Daniel K — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:32:39 +0000

If you drive into Seattle you’re likely paying through the nose each day to park there. Charging $1 a day to park at a Park & Ride is not onerous and highly appropriate. In Chicago people pay $1.25 a day to park at Metra stations, and $2 or more at CTO Park & Rides (http://www.transitchicago.com/maps/park.html).

People use them and fill them up because it is still cheaper than driving and still a better way to commute than sitting in traffic for miles on end.

By: andrew cencini

andrew cencini — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:27:52 +0000

i hate to say it but increase the fare a bit more but at the same time switch to the honor system on fare collection. improved efficiency in fare control will help free up a lot of schedule maintenance hours and other wasted time at the farebox. fare evaders will always be fare evaders – one of the reasons why european transit works better (usually) than most US transit systems is fare control tends to be based on the honor system (plus roving fare control agents) which focuses on moving people not nickel-and-diming people who are not going to and will never pay the fare anyway. why waste the whole system’s time trying to squeeze $1.75 out of a small percent of the riders?

By: andrew cencini

andrew cencini — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:18:48 +0000

it would be interesting to do the numbers on that but i don’t see it penciling out. i love the trolleybuses, except when i need to rely on them to get somewhere quickly or reliably. trolleybuses, despite being quiet and not tied to fuel prices, also (by some old APTA numbers i saw) tend to run at much slower speeds (about half) of diesel buses. slower speeds = more service hours for the same thing. i’m not sure the capital costs plus the extra service hours needed would really make sense though if we got to $8/gallon gas anything could be possible i guess.

on the other hand, electric transit works great on rail systems with exclusive ROW and lower operating costs and higher passenger capacities. as much as i scoff at seattle’s strange streetcar network proposal, it’s at least a start in the right direction (it would be nice to run the streetcars in a similar ROW as the MLK segment of link which is what tends to pass for streetcars in other parts of the world – rather than sticking the trams in with traffic and parked cars, etc.)

By: andrew cencini

andrew cencini — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:12:37 +0000

some european cities rent out streetcars and buses for parties. they charge a premium for this and it brings in a little more revenue for the system. you’d be surprised by how popular such an offering is for weddings and special events, etc.

then again, the trams are a lot more popular than buses because, well… we all know that argument…

By: andrew cencini

andrew cencini — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:09:32 +0000

i don’t think there’s anything wrong with charging for park and rides – it happens elsewhere and is simply a user fee. as the supply and demand dynamics change, the “bait” of the free park and ride to attract suburban bus riders becomes tasty enough even when the parking fee is $2 a day or more. they’ve been charging at many park and rides in the boston area for years. it can work here too, especially given our screwed up taxation policies.

By: andrew cencini

andrew cencini — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:07:00 +0000

I’m late to the table on this one but it seems like this might be a good time to push stop consolidation across many Metro routes. Increasing spacing between stops reduces the number of stops and starts on the route and, when looking at scaling problems, little things like this that happen a whole lot can add up. Stopping every block or two (as opposed to three or four) to load/unload just one or two passengers burns a lot of fuel. People will always bitch when their nearest stop is moved down the street but that’s life. Seriously, I’d rather see 5 blocks between stops on most in-city routes rather than making any further deals with the devil on Metro’s part.

The main problem here that can be addressed is fuel consumption. There are still little things that can possibly be done to reduce unnecessary fuel consumption until different revenue sources can be found and brought online.

By: Brian in Seattle

Brian in Seattle — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:19:28 +0000

I’ll agree with you that automobile oriented sprawl has happened. My general point was that some sort of sprawl will happen regardless even if you subsidize a rail line out to a small town in lets say Sedro Wooley or something (Streetcar suburbs in Seattle illustrate this). Also, the auto oriented sprawl will only cease to exist when the leader’s of the towns actually get a spine and start regulating their developers and how they lay out their street grids. Building or not building park and rides is not going to change that equation and its better to have people riding mass transit for commuting purposes and have options than none at all.

By: Brian in Seattle

Brian in Seattle — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:04:36 +0000

Actually I said it added “fuel” to the political arguments being bantered about back and forth. I’m not saying the argument is right or that it even has merit. I’m saying its being seen as that regardless of what you personally might think about whether or not we should charge for parking at park and rides and that’s a perception that people need to take into consideration when addressing the issue.

By: Wes

Wes — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:32:09 +0000

“social engineering scheme designed to take away people’s cars from them”

“No one likes to be forced into anything.”

Oh…my…gosh…are you really going to call charging for parking social engineering? Are we freakin’ capitalists or are we? Someone needs to make up their mind here because I can’t stand all this flippity flip floppin’ garbage. Drives me bonkers. Capitalism is all about protecting people from being “forced into anything” by the big scerwy government. Leave it up to the invisible hand…ring a bell?

If we aren’t going to charge fair market value for things (like parking and highways!), then lets be socialists. I’m cool with that. But!…let’s not beat around the capitalist bush anymore. And that applies to all things, not just keeping parking and roads free for everyone for life…mmkay?

You can’t have it both ways, make up your mind. Just think of the Soviet Union’s iconic line around the block for toilet paper the next time you are sitting in traffic. Same thing…

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:29:01 +0000

“Sprawl only happens due to…” cars. We subsidized cars by building freeways, bridges, and wide roads covering every block. This cost a huge amount of money, and changed our society to one of spread-out towns. These pave over nature and resources, create the need to drive, and create a culture of consumption (large houses you need to fill with stuff, heat and cool, lawns to mow, etc.). An argument I heard recently is that vehicle miles travelled have increased 95% since the 80′s (not sure I believe 95%, but I know the number is large). This is a phenomenon that is still on the rise – look out to the edges of the exurbs and you’ll see new houses.

“live where they want to” I’d argue they only want to live in the suburbs because they’re cheap. They wouldn’t be so cheap if each house came with the real price of their commute. On top of freeways, bridges, and roads you’re going to add more free parking and not call it a subsidy?

“Would we still be complaining about all of those towns and the people that live there if they had kept to that model for their growth and actually planned a walkable street grid?” Not at all! If these towns were walkable, then you could walk to a central bus or train stop. But they’re not. And we should stop encouraging them to sprawl further.

Now I haven’t said much about P&R’s because others have argued we can start charging later, and eventually have the land for TOD. But let’s not pretend they’re not subsidies to try to lure people out of cars.

By: Brian in Seattle

Brian in Seattle — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:09:01 +0000

Charging for park and rides, at least in this area, gives fuel to the political arguments against transit in general that its just a big social engineering scheme designed to take away people’s cars from them. While some would wholeheartedly agree that thats the whole point eventually, I think that the lots should remain free in order to give incentives for people to ride the bus and take other forms of transportation besides driving.

I don’t buy the argument that free P&R’s subsidize sprawl. One could make the same argument for extending commuter rail lines all the way to Olympia and Mount Vernon and out to North Bend. Sprawl only happens due to lack of zoning regulations and poorly planned street layouts plus the never ending stream of people moving out to where they can actually afford something. All those towns that now constitute suburban sprawl all have old downtowns that were actually quite walkable. Would we stil be complaining about all of those towns and the people that live there if they had kept to that model for their growth and actually planned a walkable street grid?

I say instead of making it extremely expensive and inconvienient for people to actually live where they want to, build the transportation infrastructure to allow them to get around quickly and easily and to actually have options. No one likes to be forced into anything.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:14:50 +0000

Free P&Rs subsidize sprawl. Yes, charging will push a few people on the line (yet have free parking in Seattle?!) to drive. But this is a real cost that they should be paying for.

If you’re worried about all of the money the poor have to pay to drive to the city (or drive, park, and ride to the city), and you think the answer is to subsidize them, why not subsidize housing close enough in to take a bus directly?