Comments on: Metro Operating Cuts

By: Followup On Metro Cuts - Seattle Transit Blog

Followup On Metro Cuts - Seattle Transit Blog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:56:57 +0000

[...] “low-impact reductions” will, as per County policy, be doled out to subareas in proportion to the resources they receive. In conjunction with the [...]

By: Metro Cuts Update - Seattle Transit Blog

Metro Cuts Update - Seattle Transit Blog — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:52:01 +0000

[...] expansions would incur cuts according to the 20/40/40 rule rather than the 60/20/20 cut rule that we explained in [...]

By: Regional Transit Committee: Cuts, Not Suspensions - Seattle Transit Blog

Regional Transit Committee: Cuts, Not Suspensions - Seattle Transit Blog — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:31:43 +0000

[...] to existing service levels, hitting the West subarea (Seattle, Shoreline) the hardest. As we reported several months ago, if these are considered permanent cuts, service restoration will be in accordance with 40/40/20, [...]

By: 20/40/40 Under Fire - Seattle Transit Blog

20/40/40 Under Fire - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:07:29 +0000

[...] cost efficiency and denies relief for overloaded routes in dense, transit-dependent areas. As we discovered in February, Metro policy dictates that cuts be made in proportion to the current service levels (approximately [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:34:22 +0000

Your update shows that 20/40/40 is doubly a rip off. Seattle only gets 20% of service hours, and a lot of that goes to paying 50% for suburban commuter routes.

By: Brian in Seattle

Brian in Seattle — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:59:30 +0000

If they are in city, yes that would need to be looked at. Blanket rules like 20-40-40 are hampering the response to the financial crisis. While some compromise is needed, the sad fact is that some people are going to lose service. Trying to spread the pain evenly around is just a recipe for making everyone angry and making the bus service dysfuctional. Example, cutting service on a already standing room only route. Unfortunatly, here in this region there exists a mentality of “we can make everyone happy” which leads to decisions that absolutely defy common sense.

Assuming though that the higher ridership routes subsidize the lower ridership routes, it makes no sense to cut the high demand routes if you are looking at cash flow.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:56:42 +0000

The other reason Everett might favor keeping ET and CT separate is they feel they get better and more responsive service than they would if they merged with CT.

I can imagine fights over service as people in Everett felt their taxes were subsidizing service in the county and vice versa. Much like the fights that take place over Metro.

Seattle used to have its own city run transit system. It was merged with the privately owned suburban bus services when Metro took over transit service in King County in 1973.

Perhaps it is time to go “back to the future” and have the city take over Seattle service again?

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:36:38 +0000

Yes, obviously, any low ridership routes should be the first to go compared to high-ridership hours.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:30:41 +0000

Extremely low ridership? Do you mean like the route 33 from downtown to Discovery Park, that on Saturday and Sundays often has no more than 4 people on a bus?

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:25:40 +0000

Bernie, we did a post about Metro’s revenues and service from Seattle a few months ago: http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/11/19/subsidy-is-a-loaded-word/

Seattle does get a fair share, certainly. I do think that while 40/40/20 makes sense for new service hours, cuts should not be political or subarea based.

By: runnerodb83

runnerodb83 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:10:31 +0000

Right, I’m hypothesizing that more service on the eastside will (obviously) boost ridership as well as make transit a more viable option for many who are willing to take it provided there are more routes and more frequent service.

For me personally, I live 7 miles from work by car. If I walk 1 block to the nearest bus stop, I can catch a bus that will take me within 3 blocks of my work (253). Unfortunately it takes close to an hour and I’ve actually beat the bus running home from work. My other option is to bike to a 520 flyer stop (5-7 mins) and then take an MT bus to work. It takes only 5 minutes more than driving, but since I’m a casual biker at best, that option really only works in the summer and because service is so relatively sparse, I can’t even try to transfer from a closer bus to a freeway stop bus and have it be any less than taking the hour long way.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:06:24 +0000

Snohomish County is not quite that simple! Everett Transit is city owned and has existed for almost a century. Community Transit serves Snohomish County. CT used to serve routes in Everett due to the fact that county riders needed to goto Everett (obviously). The problem is that Everett residents don’t pay sales taxes for CT so they get a free ride. They pay taxes for ET and Sound Transit. To keep things fair, CT decided to drop most of their service to Everett. They tend to operate “communter style” to Everett in morning, to the county in the afternoon. The obvious solution to this dilemma would be to merge. CT has tried for years to do so but ET adamantly refuses! To be honest, ET has a .6% tax rate while CT has a .9% rate so I can understand Everett’s reluctance to increase the tax rate by joining CT even though would be so much easier for us Snohomish County residents who work in Everett!

By: Metro’s Policies Will Deepen the Wound - Seattle Transit Blog

Metro’s Policies Will Deepen the Wound - Seattle Transit Blog — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:37:39 +0000

[...] Policies Will Deepen the Wound by Ben Schiendelman Following up on what Martin wrote about Metro service cuts, I want to point out that the long-term impact of Metro’s expansion and contraction policies [...]

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:29:15 +0000

The problem is most of the routes with extremely low ridership are in the East and South sub-areas that won’t see many cuts. Outside of late evening hours there are few routes in Seattle that will have entire trips with no passengers. Even in the evening many Seattle routes have very high loads and standing room only.

So even if you only cut service hours or eliminate routes with low-ridership in Seattle you are going to be cutting service that would be considered very well used were it in the East or South sub-area.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:21:25 +0000

There are a fair number of low-income people, disabled and seniors out in the East and South sub-areas. Many of these people either can’t afford a car or can’t drive. In addition much of the Eastside transit ridership is during peak periods where service levels are somewhat higher than during the rest of the day.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:16:56 +0000

Good point that cutting or eliminating the most popular routes at peak times might provide the political will to fill the budget hole.

Cutting mid-day or evening service won’t have nearly the same effect.

I’d also say raise the fares and extend the peak periods. Peak hours should be from the first AM buses until 10 AM and from 3 PM until 7 PM. Fares should be $2 off peak and $4 for one-zone peak and $5 for two zone peak.

Of course we could also fill the budget hole by shutting metro down entirely for 1 week out of every 5.

By: Brian in Seattle

Brian in Seattle — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:16:46 +0000

At first glance, It would seem an odd policy choice to cut the most crowded and profitable routes first in the midst of a budget crunch. One would think you would want to keep those routes so that you have the most cash flowing in and cut the empty routes that are just a driver and one or two people.

I haven’t read the PDF yet but will later.

By: runnerodb83

runnerodb83 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:03:25 +0000

Realistically speaking, given our current economic situation, I think the opposite will happen. Cutting non peak hours in favor of serving the highest number of people on the most popular routes.

By: runnerodb83

runnerodb83 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:50:50 +0000

While I can understand the perspective of those against the 20/40/40 rule and using current statistics to back up their claims that more service to the burbs is bad policy, it’s not quite fair to compare it that way. Given that the eastside has less service and fewer routes than Seattle, it makes transit much less convenient and, compared to Seattle, less available. One could argue that suburban design also hinders transit useage. But the only way to get more riders on the Eastside is to provide more routes and more frequent service. For most MT routes on the eastside, 30 minute peak headways in limited corridors are the norm which really isnt conducive to the attractiveness of transit. I’m not saying that giving more bus service is going to get Jane Lexus and Joe Mercedes out of their SOV but ridership on several eastside routes is quite high given the relatively low service standards.

By: joshuadf

joshuadf — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:43:11 +0000

Personally I’d like to see Metro concentrate its limited funds on the people who need it most: low-income residents who go to work at odd hours. This would mean cutting peak service, which also might make the state, cities, and employers a bit more interested in fixing this problem.