There were two press releases from the County Council about Executive Triplett’s Metro budget proposal:
- First, Julia Patterson, who was one backer of the “Council Plan” last week, criticized the Triplett plan for not doing enough to cut waste and therefore triggering more bus service cuts than necessary, as well as cutting too deeply into Metro’s operating reserve.
- Second, Councilmember and Executive Candidate Dow Constantine also criticized the plan for cutting too deeply, while otherwise stressing his common ground with Triplett.
The rhetoric about cutting waste is premature prior to the report on the September 1 audit. However, there are very real differences between the Triplett and Council plans, listed below the fold:
- The Triplett plan cuts about 9% of service, compared with 4-6% for the council. It is also much more specific in that it specifies that the cuts will applied more or less evenly over the system, implying a 62/21/17 North/South/East King split. These cuts, however, would be treated as suspensions, thus allowing them to be restored later without regard to 40/40/20.
- The Council plan, although specifics are unclear, seeks to raise fares by about $1.00 by 2013, rather than 50 cents.
- In a move that has seized most of the attention, the four Councilmembers behind the plan hope to either rescind the Ride Free Area or get a larger payment from Seattle to maintain it. The amount to be saved in this manner is the subject of much speculation and little in the way of empirical data.
Everyone is planning to cut waste and eliminate or scale back the ferry district; there will also be large cuts to Transit Now.
Constantine has not released a transportation plan, although he’s mentioned in several forums that he supports a combination of efficiency improvements, repurpose of ferry taxes, and about a 4% service cut.
Larry Phillips, who has released a plan, avoids any service cut by using more of Metro’s one-time reserve replacement surplus and promising unspecified revenue increases after the recession ends.
I’d expect the Council to really get down to business when the audit findings are released September 1st. If you have strong opinions on some aspects of the plans, make your feelings known to your representative before then.
The center piece of Exec Tripletts plan seems to focus on the flat 9%, route by route cutbacks – something that I’ve characterized as “carpet bombing, rather than surgically striking” at the problem. I can understand how a lame duck exec would like to punt on the tough choices, but the longer this problem goes unresolved the worse the fixes will be and disproportional to any metric of efficiency you care to use.
The real centerpiece of his and most other plans, should be grabbing the low lying fruit (up to 291Mil. In Triplett’s plan) of reserves, and deferred purchases and maintenance. Buses continue to wear out at predictable rates and cost much more to maintain as they progress beyond their useful life. Mr. Goodwrench would advise against this short term strategy.
Too little attention has been given to optimizing the system we have. As I’ve read comments on this blog over the years, many excellent ideas have emerged (bus stop spacing, RFA, fare evasion, advertising, loading/unloading/payment methods, etc), yet I see little if any desire on the counties part to address any of these. All are controversial, and maybe that’s the hurdle, but in extraordinary financial crisis, everything must be on the table. I know that doesn’t close the gap, but it certainly helps, and is preferable to massive service cuts, AND spending down most reserves for capital spending that surely will be required in future years.
spot on, some routes have over 50% fare evasion, we could do much more advertising, and the RFA needs to go. Just charge double the cash fare compared to ORCA and see everyone switch.
What routes have “over 50% fare evasion” and what’s your evidence?
I know of no such route that even comes close to that, ever.
Having a weird issue posting (nothing seems to happen when I try) so am doing a ‘reply’ to an existing post instead. Hope this doesn’t wind up being a duplicate. If it does – my apologies.
Here’s the text of a letter (excerpted for length) I had published in the May issue of the ATU 587 (union that represents Metro drivers) newsletter, which you can view in its entirety at http://www.atu587.com/documents/ATUMay2009.pdf
. . . Recent talks of possible service cuts and even potential layoffs within the County have motivated many of our leaders to seek new sources of funding, as well as areas within the budget to “trim the fat”.
(snip)
Custodial Facilities Maintenance division.
County salary data by individual for 2007
(located at http://lbloom.net/king07.xls ) indicates that two years ago, the salaries for these managers were as follows:
Supervisor: $107,575.13
Chief #1: $120,509.02
Chief #2: $99,895.77
Chief #3: $69,691.66
Now with figures like these (and a further examination of Metro management structure and salaries shows many more examples), it seems pretty hard to argue that Metro is not top-heavy or that upper management salaries are not inflated.
(snip)
Here’s hoping that as Metro and the rest of the County looks at trimming budgets, that expensive and potentially redundant upper middle management positions receive seriously consideration for consolidation, downsizing and even elimination before transit service cuts or driver layoffs.
(snip)
I would assume that 1 Dollar would be added to every fare type: on, off peak 1 zone 2 zone. If this is going to be the case it seems a little crazy since someone from Issaquah would be only pay 50 cents more then some on from lets say Queen Anne. I think Metro Should create a Third fare zone. The third fare zone would be applied to areas that are a certain distance from Donwntown Seattle. For example 15 miles that would include areas such as South and far east king county.
You have a very good point for having a south/east fare zone. Routes like the 311 (Downtown-Duvall) and 342 (Shoreline-Renton) are examples of routes where it would be useful to maybe charge an extra little bit because they are such long-haul routes, and most people who take those busses pay with some sort of pass. $18 more a month doesn’t seem too unreasonable.
Cash fares need to be simple. One cash fare rounded to the nearest dollar for any travel at any time of day would speed up fare collection (mandatory if the RFA is eliminated). Zones and Peak charges slow the process down too much and it makes the bus operator take time to explain – interpret the fare required.
A day pass should be the only type of transfer given (if any since Orca has transfers built in too) – for the same reason.
Any discounts to the cash fare should only be available via Orca card – whether epurse or monthly – annual pass. Otherwise fare collection wastes too much time.
Every second wasted on fare collection keeps the bus from moving! Add up those seconds and we are talking about real transit hours all of which are expensive and are better spent moving passengers.
Jeff,
Are suggesting something like this?
$3.00 cash fare
$2.00 ORCA fare
I could go for that. Eliminate cash transfers also. The ORCA will be the transfer.
I have to say while I can appreciate the goal here – so many folks ride who pay cash because it’s what they understand – and frankly may be all they can really grasp or have access to for regular or irregular rides.
Some thought might go into who you are penalizing. Spend a few days riding the Central Area and Rainier Valley buses during commute time and throughout the busier times of day, and ask yourself if you can really envision a lot of the folks you see embracing and understanding ORCA.
You may come to the conclusion that you’re slapping a monetary penalty on those who can least afford it.
A little community outreach would help. Lets educate our riders (off the bus) to make our service more efficient.
I am not saying eliminate cash – just give an incentive to pay your fare in a more efficient way.
Yes – or the maximum system fare or twice that with a day pass issued.
Let ORCA sort out the complexities over discounts.
Absolutely eliminate paper transfers!
Here’s an the text (excerpted for length) of a letter I had published in the May issue of the ATU 587 (union that represents Metro drivers) newsletter, which you can view in its entirety at http://www.atu587.com/documents/ATUMay2009.pdf
Dear Editor,
Recent talks of possible service cuts and even potential layoffs within the County have motivated many of our leaders to seek new sources of funding, as well as areas within the budget to “trim the fat”. As we all examine the tough decisions
that must be made, isn’t this a good time for all of us to look within and ask ourselves — is Metro making the best use of increasingly limited funding in the face of demanding need for services?
Recently at the prompting of a friend of mine who runs to the high end of the definition of “fiscal conservative”, I took a look at some of the salaries within Metro, and when he confronted me with a specific example — I was at a loss to defend or even explain the expenditure. The example was found within Metro’s
Custodial Facilities Maintenance division. The description of this division according to the County web site:
“The Custodial Services group does all the custodial maintenance at the Transit bases this would include cleaning toilets, sweeping bus shelters & park & ride lots, removing garbage & maintaining receptacles and servicing of Comfort Stations.
This group provides the Custodians who clean the bus tunnel also.”
Now unquestionably this is an important division covering a lot of territory, many structures, and a significant number of hardworking employees. These are the folks that take care of our comfort stations and keep things neat and safe for the public. Looking at the number of managers and their salaries for this division however, should provide pause for anyone – and not just the under informed everyday taxpayer.
According to the division description (found at http://directory.
kingcounty.gov/GroupDetail.asp?GroupID=20510 ) there are three Transit Chiefs, one Transit Supervisor, and one Administrative Specialist working in support of the
Custodial Facilities Maintenance division.
County salary data by individual for 2007
(located at http://lbloom.net/king07.xls ) indicates that two years ago, the salaries for these managers were as follows:
Supervisor: $107,575.13
Chief #1: $120,509.02
Chief #2: $99,895.77
Chief #3: $69,691.66
Here’s hoping that as Metro and the rest of the County looks at trimming budgets, that expensive and potentially redundant upper middle management positions receive seriously consideration for consolidation, downsizing and even elimination before transit service cuts or driver layoffs.
<snippage