One service subsidizes another effectively, and I think we’re going to need that here too as ST takes Metro’s most profitable bus routes and replaces them with rail.

Trains aren’t really subsidizing buses (both lose money) and the combined fare recovery doesn’t really matter. Trains are high in capital costs (loan payments, that’s ST’s purpose) and buses are high in operating costs (labor). Link will reduce metros overall operating expenses by pulling buses out of service. None of the routes being replace are profitable (all require subside) but they are plentiful which is what’s important in reducing the cost. The fact that the remaining buses have a lower fare recovery ratio looks bad but the bottom line is Metro has to spend less overall on bus service and therefore has a lower operating budget. The under performing routes are a liability that exists with or without Link. Further, ST is paying Metro to operate Link so there’s no need for a merger in order for Metro to access ST’s “pot of gold”.

The real problem is rural areas demanding service hours in proportion to population or tax revenue. Link Transit (Wenatchee) is a good example of what it takes to provide rural service. They manage about a 5% fare recovery. So, to be equitable Metro should provide about one quarter of the operating hours per sales tax dollar in rural areas that they do in city. That’s hard to do politically. I think it would be a much easier sell to tell communities outside of Seattle they can keep every nickel of sales tax revenue and spend it (or not) how they see fit and let Metro revert back to Seattle Transit.

As for running unmanned trains, that can only be done with 100% grade separation, also joint operation with buses in the transit tunnel or on the D2 roadway would not be possible.

I think it was Sunday service to North Bend that was so abysmal in fare recovery that it actually got cut. I remember the headlines but not how long ago that was or the specifics.

Furthermore I’m not sure the peak-hour buses to downtown from North Bend are all that empty. There more than one or two trips each direction which indicates to me there is at least some ridership.

While it is the less-dense areas that are getting much of the expensive to provide service, some of the service to outlying areas has been in place a fairly long time.

Duvall, Carnation, North Bend and Enumclaw all run their own police departments. Why can’t they run or contract for public transit. Ellensburg runs it’s own transit servcie (one route and it’s free) I guess Pullman now runs it’s own transit service. Lots of small cities manage and with so many options to contract this out I don’t see why it would be a problem. Each community could decide what, if any, level of service to provide.

I think it would result in a fare structure that is closer to actual cost. It would take into consideration time and ridership rather than a somewhat arbitrary zone system. Of course if you ride from one city to another then want to use that cities public transport you’ll have to pay for it but that’s only fare. You can’t take the train to Portland and expect you’re Metro pass to be valid.

How many riders from North Bend does it take to get the same farebox recovery rate as a bus in urban Seattle? They have fewer people and many more diesel-guzzling miles.

They’re mostly highway miles instead of two block stop and go driving. And since demand is low something based on the Sprinter chassis or E-350 would suffice. The problem is you’ve got one driver and the trip takes a long time. The fuel isn’t where the recovery ratio suffers. That’s why increases to the Van Pool program make more sense for areas like this. The van pool supposedly has a 60% cost recovery ratio. The other killer with running regularly scheduled routes out to places like North Bend is then everything within a 1/4 mile of that service has to provide Access support; yep, public cabulance from North Bend to Pill Hill. I know van pools only serve commuters so perhaps DART service can be expanded in a lot of the areas which have low ridership. Both of these allocate funds to an area that aren’t accounted for by the 40/20/20 ratio.

Basically the idea is to end the pissing match between Seattle and the rest of King County over transit.

Seattle needs votes from the rest of King County to pass the sales taxes that drive transit in Seattle. Seattle has neither the majority of county population nor the majority of county employment — those taxes need the votes of people who do not live in, work in, or frequently drive through Seattle. The easiest way to get them to vote for a new tax is to allow some fraction of the tax to benefit them.

If you want to use a county-wide tax to fund transit, you need to at least pretend that you’re providing county-wide transit in some rough proportion to the tax base.

If you don’t want to fund transit outside Seattle, then don’t use transit funds from outside Seattle, and you won’t have to get the votes of people who don’t use Seattle transit.

You can’t allocate County transit funding based on how much each area pays in taxes or how many people live in each part of the County–that’s like the right-wing complaints against the National Endowment for the Arts in the 90s that most of its money goes to urban areas. NEA money goes to the cities because that’s where most of the art happens. Transit money goes disproportionately to cities because that’s where it’s most needed and efficient. Farm subsidies go disproportionately to rural areas because that’s where the farms are.

This is all part of being a community, or society. We can’t bean-count and spend the same amount and get the same amounts of services for each item the government collects and spends money for. Didn’t some black guy from Chicago say we’re all our brothers’ keepers?