Comments on: Why Governance Reform is a bad idea

By: Locals stage road blockade over accident near Tvm « Asianetindia.com Blog

Locals stage road blockade over accident near Tvm « Asianetindia.com Blog — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:58:50 +0000

[...] Why Governance Reform is a bad idea – Seattle Transit Blog [...]

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:03:52 +0000

The New York area is so enormous that the MTA doesn’t even cover all of the transit: there’s also PATH, NJT, CDOT and Amtrak among the *trains*, plus Suffolk County and other buses.

The only real mega-agency for transit I can think of is New Jersey Transit, with responsibility for the majority of trains and buses throughout the entire state. It has been criticized for inability to keep all its parts running as well as each other or in sync, so it is perhaps an argument against super-agencies. But it does get funded, and it does show how a superagency will have to end up: as a government department, like WashDOT. If the state legislature isn’t ready to fund transit properly, superagencies are not your friend, and the MTA is dealing with this right now in NY.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:41:12 +0000

I’m for an elected board for ST. And the governance proposal at the top level appears to give us that. However, in it’s present form it looks to me like a hijacking of the mass transit money for highways. So I won’t be working to pass it.

By: lazarus

lazarus — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:27:39 +0000

I didn’t try to buy a ticket all the way to the airport because I had no need to take the shuttle, but buying a ticket from Westlake to Tukwila was incredibly easy — I can’t imagine how anyone who has ever used an ATM or a parking kiosk would ever have any trouble with that at all.

However, the people next to me on Link were going to the airport and they had little shuttle tickets that they said were easy to get. Their only question was what to do with the ticket once they got on the shuttle — but if that is any sort of “big problem” then who cares because Airport Link opens in 5 months anyhow and the shuttle goes away.

This is a non-issue that will go away as people get used to the system and actually start to read the info that is already provided.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:03:24 +0000

Well there are also the practical problems of what to do about Everett Transit and Metro which in theory get some of the same economies of scale by using the back-office functions of the Everett City Government and King County Government. That said in the case of Metro I’m told it is still more theory than practice and Metro still does many thing separate from the county, it doesn’t help that in some cases the county department in question is a bit of a mess.

Still standardizing equipment a bit and doing joint orders for everything from bus stop signs, to coaches, to tires, to fuel shouldn’t be too hard. Sharing orders probably won’t save much money for Metro as they are already quite large but it would help the 4 smaller transit agencies.

By: Barman

Barman — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:51:04 +0000

Or just leave it at Sound Transit. If we combine anything, I want Sound Transit to preserve their branding. I just think their livery and marketing is too cool – by far one of the best looking transit agencies I’ve ever seen.

By: Barman

Barman — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:49:08 +0000

We can only do so much. There will always be clueless people walking around, stumbling into things they don’t understand.

By: Elbar

Elbar — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:09:53 +0000

PST. Puget Sound Transit.

By: Zed

Zed — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:38:45 +0000

What Mr. Mallahan doesn’t explain is how turning Metro into an independent agency would improve transit service. Just reforming the governance model or making changes to the management structure mean little if it doesn’t result in quantitative improvements out on the street. What we need is elected officials who will encourage Metro to make comprehensive improvements to the bus system and officials who will be bold enough to allow Metro to implement things like transit signal priority and feeder networks for the new light rail lines.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:18:44 +0000

The main problem with consolidation for me is that people outside of King County don’t want nearly as much transit as we do, so either King County will end up with less transit or exurban and rural areas will end up with higher taxes for transit that they will never use. I don’t necessarily think that Sounder extensions to outlying areas are bad for this reason though; those areas could easily set up their own taxing authority to pay for capital and operations cost for that part of the line and not have to become part of the RTD.

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:18:02 +0000

That’s true. There’s a balance, however, in terms of more riders from each seat being filled repeatedly throughout a trip versus more riders just because you have a much bigger vehicle. When you have a 4-car light rail train, one driver can transport many, many more fare-paying passengers. And really what you need to look at is riders per revenue hour, not per mile. Since light rail generally goes much faster than buses, it can stop much less frequently (distance-wise) and have just as many boardings per hour. Or more, because the trains are much bigger.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:12:53 +0000

There was definitely mass confusion today at Mount Baker, with a bunch of people who didn’t know what they were doing trying to buy Link tickets. First, they said they “wanted the light rail but it only gave tickets for the Sound” and also the sign said that Link goes to the airport but there’s no option for SeaTac on the TVM because that station’s not open yet, and so they were quite flustered. I guess that’s mostly just a problem that ST needs to solve by having more detailed explanations at the stations for first time transit users.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:00:29 +0000

That’s basically Ross Hunter’s position. You get into hairy issues on which taxes are paying for what, but sure.

By: Oran Viriyincy

Oran Viriyincy — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:24:47 +0000

We do have 511 and it’s run by WSDOT. Currently, it only provides highway, ferry, and weather info with connections to Amtrak and airlines.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:32:33 +0000

Yes, however, Portland’s ridership per mile is around 2400 people per mile while San Diego’s is around 1700 per mile. When link is built out to the extent of ST2, it will have ridership around 5200 per mile, or so the projections say. The LA system would need to add around 150,000 riders to stay ahead or at the level of Link and SF Muni would need to add 130,000 riders or so for the same result.

By: Matt L

Matt L — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:16:32 +0000

I would love to see something like 511 for the Puget Sound Region. Right now the information is scattered among separate websites/phone numbers for the different agencies. Also as part of that, a unified, per-route way to get Rider Alerts by RSS and email/SMS.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:00:08 +0000

First off the ridership in Portland and San Diego isn’t bad they are #5 and #6 respectively for US light rail system ridership. They would be about middle of the pack if you combine both rapid transit and light rail.

Second once U-Link is up and running it is very likely Seattle will beat both Portland and San Diego in light rail ridership. We may even beat Philadelphia in ridership. With the full system build out there is every chance Seattle might be #1 for light rail system ridership in the US though I suspect LA will stay ahead of us since they are expanding their system at a fair clip. SF may also stay ahead. It is entirely possible if ridership of the full system beats projections that Link might pass BART ridership though I think that is somewhat unlikely.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:44:39 +0000

One idea to get some of the benefits of Governance Reform without actually having some of the problems would be to combine some of the back-office functions such as legal, accounting, purchasing, payroll, etc. Also maybe combine things like coach orders to get volume discounts. Essentially have the 5 local agencies join forces in areas where economies of scale come into play.

By: Zed

Zed — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:28:01 +0000

“The current regional transit structure here is a mess: you have no fewer than 5 agencies all providing service, some of which overlaps, some of which doesn’t.”

Which is exactly why Sound Transit was created in 1996, to better plan and operate regional transportation, which wasn’t being provided by the local transit agencies because their main obligation, rightfully so, is to provide local transit to the taxpayers in their districts. Having a regional authority provide regional trips and build regional transit infrastructure protects the local transit agencies and frees up money for local service.

What I would like to see is a regional organization (maybe ST) that would help coordinate the efforts of the local transit agencies, to insure that services are integrated. This would include harmonizing the fare structure, providing unified traveler information and marketing, and making transfers between agencies seamless. However the governing authority of the local agencies would remain local. I think that it is quite possible to greatly improve the coordination of the various transit agencies without governance reform.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:58:07 +0000

Link’s capacity is not significantly less than BART’s and puts any other US light rail system to shame. And contrary to popular belief, Link does not take resources and money away from existing bus service (ala Portland). Metro and other agencies are cutting routes because their funding from sales tax is plummeting or has plummeted, not that Link has taken money from them. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it true.