2010 fares, photo by Oran
Last week we were approached by a reader who confided in us a tale of discrepancy regarding Metro’s peak fares and exactly when they begin during the day. According to the agency’s instructional literature on fare payment, the peak fare designation doesn’t get any more specific than “Monday to Friday 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.,” begging the question of how trips that travel between peak and off-peak hours charge their riders.
The question was raised when the reader transferred from an off-peak trip to another trip at about a quarter to three in the afternoon when the ORCA transfer deducted an additional $0.25 from his E-purse, a peak charge despite the fact that the boarding occurred before designated PM peak hours. After sending a query, Metro responded that peak trips are charged according to how much time a trip spends in the peak period.
Indeed, that policy does seem to be reflected in Metro’s operator handbook (emphasis added):
Peak-hour fare is charged during peak hour time periods when weekday schedules are operated. Peak hours are 6 to 9 a.m.and 3 to 6 p.m. However, there are trips beginning or ending outside the peak-hour time periods that are considered peak-hour trips. This is to avoid having alternating peak/off- peak fares charged during a single trip. A peak trip is indicated on the run card with a dollar sign ($).
When operating a base route or in-service “Y” route, the peak-hour fare applies if more than half of the trip is in the peak period.
Although Metro has done a fairly good job keeping this policy consistent for as long as they’ve had peak fares, the same reader brought to our attention the section on peak fares as codified in King County Code, which would actually contradict the existing policy (emphasis added):
Peak period trip means any scheduled weekday trip that reaches its destination between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or leaves its origin between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., excluding weekdays on which the following holidays are legally observed: New Year’s Day; Martin Luther King, Jr., Day; Presidents’ Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Veterans’ Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day.
So while morning riders might pay a peak fare even if boarding before the start of the peak period, the code is clear that this is not the case for afternoon riders, which would have technically made the reader’s additional +$0.25 transfer an illegal charge. Despite Metro’s long-standing adherence to the formula-based policy, it seems to be directly out line with the county code, which presumably trumps agency policy.
It’s clear that the situation here is no more than a plain oversight of governing policy, where it may be as simple as someone at Metro having forgotten to look up county code before dictating the formula-based policy on peak fares. Although I don’t see outrageous negligence on anybody’s part here, it is disconcerting that there are contradictions like this. Whether it’s the county code or Metro policy that gets amended, neither can coexist at the same time without looming legal and bureaucratic implications.
Just sent link to Larry Phillips, my King County Councilman. Thanks, Sherwin.
Mark Dublin
Mark: When/if Larry Phillips replies to your sending of the link can you pass the remarks along?
I think you got a wrong answer to the question from someone and the right application of the county code when routes are marked for peak fare on the run cards.
As far as I know, all the schedulers at Metro are well aware of what constitutes a peak fare condition, and most of the drivers know it too.
“…. when the ORCA transfer deducted an additional $0.25 from his E-purse, a peak charge despite the fact that the boarding occurred before designated PM peak hours.”
It’s my understanding that a trip can be a peak trip even if it’s before designated PM peak hours if more than half the trip is occurring after 3 PM. For example, if a bus leaves Redmond at 2:45 PM, and gets to Seattle at 3:20 PM, the entire trip will be peak, because most of the trip is on the peak side. So anyone boarding that bus in Redmond at 2:45, which is before “peak hours,” will be charged a peak fare.
The practical upshot of the policy is to shift the peak period forward. So if you take a bus at 2:30pm you’ll often pay peak but if you take it at 5:30pm you won’t.
The rules are pretty simple: Arrive in the Seattle CBD during peak period, pay peak fare, regardless where or when you started the trip.
Likewise, leave Seattle CBD in the peak, pay peak fare. That’s the most congested area, which is where peak fares do the most good during the peak period.
What about Kent to Auburn you shout!
You’re all talking about policy, which clearly differs from the law. This is the stuff that class-action lawsuits are made of. I recommend either adjusting the law to fit the policy, or the policy to fit the law.
The policy only differs from the law if you consider both halves of a through-routed trip a single trip. This is an issue with the definition of “trip.”
Any time someone pays for a peak trip before 6am or 3pm, Metro is breaking the law.
(edit) Scratch the 6am bit – the law is different in the morning. But they’re still breaking the law in the afternoon.
Matt the engineer probably meant that peak fares should never be charged between 9am and 3pm.
But if “I” get on at 2:45 and get off before 3pm, why would they charge me a peak fare? Especially if I tapped on leaving the bus? That happened to me last year on a trip to Snoqualmie Falls. Could it be that the 2 hour transfer benefit extends into the peak zone?
Yes, as I said in the post, that is currently how Metro structures its fare collection. But if you read on, the KCC says otherwise.
The KC Code demonstrates the same downtown bias in its reasoning, but applies it even more punitively than the current Metro policy.
I, for one, would be incredibly incensed if I had to pay the peak price for post-5:30 inbound trips, when high demand and a sudden drop in frequency combine to yield the slowest, most crowded, least reliable trips of the entire day!
If the KC Code were implemented to the letter, not only would the 5:30 trip on the 18 (which never gets downtown earlier than 6:10, no matter what the schedule says) become peak, but so would the even worse 6:02 trip, which leaves its North Beach terminus at 5:57.
Charging extra for a trip that often takes just shy of an hour would be highly offensive.
Remember that through-routed trips, even sometimes with the same route number (e.g., the 2, 3, 4, and 48), are considered two separate trips by the scheduling system. And when they are, the entire through-routed trip usually gets the dollar sign on the run card, even if only one half of it would qualify for peak treatment. (I only remember one exception from my driving days, which was a morning 24->136 trip that had an eight-minute layover downtown from 5:52 to 6:00 a.m.)
The rider may have boarded during the first half of a such a trip.
For fun, let’s run some numbers on this.
$0.25 x 5 days/week x 52 wk/yr = $65/yr for every commuter this affects.
Let’s take a wild* guess that this affects 20k people.
That’s $1.3M every year.
* very wild. I have no idea how to come up with the right number here.
To make your wild guess even more fun, incorporate the difference between off-peak and peak 2 zone.
* which validates my original point. Matt, is making false claims about annual revenue, when the PSRC is showing only half that amount in 2040 documents. Clearly, Matt is trying to pull a fast one here, wildly guessing at things he knows little about. Shame on you Sir, shame, shame.
Now I have to question my staunch support for overhead trams – affectionately called Mattmobiles ™.
I can’t handle any more truth on this blog! Goodbye all, forever!
I’m not sure I can parse that, [mic]. Are you saying annual revenue for Metro is $650k? That can’t be right. Or are you saying the PRSC somehow tells us ridership of just-before-peak trips?
I admire this blog, its editors, and all its contributors for the statistical and analytical skills that generally elude me. So I’m curious as to everybody’s take on my completely gut-level sense that every complication in fare policy- peak-off-peak, when to pay- always ends up costing more in delay and lost goodwill than it gains in revenue.
Also much prejudiced in favor of monthly passes, which really help me with my handicaps re: complexity.
Many thanks,
Mark Dublin
Mark Dublin
You were already overdoing the whole “Mark Dublin” thing when you signed your at the bottom of your comments, when it already had your name at the top, but now you’re going to type your name twice at the bottom? Mark, we get it, your name is Mark Dublin.
Doublin’ the Dublin.
This is the first time it has occurred to me, but perhaps Mark has a default signature setting for comment fields.
Mark Dublind.p.Metro puts more buses on the road during peak times, and Sound Transit puts more buses on the road during peak times. Why does Metro use a peak/off-peak fare structure, and ST doesn’t?
The two agencies make independent decisions and have different cost structures. Metro has traditionally had a lot of unidirectional peak expresses to downtown, at the same fare as regular routes, even though half the time they’re deadheading. In the 80s when peak fares started, the unidirectional peak expresses were even more prominent than they are now. Metro also has local service, which means almost every route needs to be doubled during peak.
ST has only regional service so it can optimize for that, and the difference between peak vs off-peak is less dramatic. Most routes have the same frequency all day, with maybe just a couple extra runs at peak, bidirectional. There are only a few peak-only routes. Also, many peak riders are also inter-county riders, so ST gets a premium fare from them anyway.
The ST 590 series is a big exception. During peak hours the service imbalance is like 9:1 so there is a lot of deadhead traffic or operators, and there is no public policy reason why ST bus should be cheaper than ST rail (which is much lower marginal cost to fill a seat) – the fare policy is bad policy
As the person who initiated this story let me repeat what was at issue: I got on the 75 at 2:42pm in the U-District/start of the run. I got off at Children’s Hospital at 2:55pm. At no time was I riding between 3-6pm.
The fact that the majority of the run is during peak period is of no relevance to the rider. The fact that Metro chooses to enact the policy is of no relevance. The only thing that is relevant is what the King County code says:
28.92.115 Peak Period Trip. Peak period trip means any scheduled weekday trip that reaches its destination between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or leaves its origin between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., excluding weekdays on which the following holidays are legally observed: New Year’s Day; Martin Luther King, Jr., Day; Presidents’ Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Veterans’ Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. (Ord. 17130 § 2, 2011: Ord. 11033 § 3 (part), 1993).
As Matt above says, make the law fit the policy or the policy fit the law. What would be so horrible if at 3pm the driver switched the fare cards and hit the button on the Orca reader (If that’s even necessary. It should be programmed automatically) When Ride-free goes away this should be even simpler, though the language should probably be made even simpler and get rid of the “reaches the destination” part. You get on during peak you pay peak. You get on during non-peak you pay non-peak. This is not difficult.
I think your idea makes a lot of sense once we have pay-as-you-enter for all routes at all times. I regularly ride the 28 north from Fremont after work. I’ve seen several cases shortly after 6 where the last “peak” bus is running late and the first “off peak” bus is right behind it by the time they get to Fremont. Get on the first bus and pay $2.50. Wait a minute for the second one and pay $2.25. The funny thing is that the more expensive bus in this case is often more full because it was running late, so the cheaper bus will pass it before reaching my stop.
Basing the fare on when the bus was downtown is also a bit unfair to people who don’t start their trips there — someone working downtown leaving work at 6:15 pays an off-peak fare, while someone in Ballard or Fremont leaving work at the same time pays a peak fare.
How so? A trip can’t end before it begins.
If someone boards a northbound bus in Ballard at 6:15, it is likely charging peak fare because it started the run earlier in downtown before 6:00. In contrast, someone boarding a northbound bus in downtown at the same time (6:15) pays off-peak fare.
Because the trip in Fremont at 6:15 has already been on the road for a while, and could be a peak trip. The one leaving downtown at 6:15 is presumably just starting its trip.
This post is the first I’ve heard of the 50/50 rule for peak surcharge calculation. The way I though it was and seems to be always implemented is if the route ends after 6PM then you don’t pay peak fare. Use the 255 from S. Kirkland P&R for example. Trip leaving the P&R at 5:24 and arriving at ID Station at 5:59 pays $3. Revise the original entries so that you leave at 5:35 and arrive at 6:07 and you pay only $2.25. It’s just over 1/2 and hour from S. Kirkland to DT and about 45 minutes to get to Brickyard P&R (seems like 3 hours ;-) so me thinks the trip ending time is the magic number. Then again, if anyone could actually understand it it would be in against Metro fare policy and probably a violation of KC code too.
You were caught by the through-routing issue I described above, because the 75 (for the next month) is one of those routes that have a same-number through route. Note that I’m not defending Metro here; I’m just explaining what happened so you can understand. I think the way the system works probably violates the Code.
The 75 trip you were riding is actually considered two trips in Metro’s system. The first leaves Campus Parkway at 2:41 and arrives at Northgate at 3:30. By itself, this trip would not carry the peak fare. But it’s through-routed with another trip that leaves Northgate at 3:35 and arrives in Ballard at 4:07. That second trip does qualify as peak. And where one peak trip is through-routed with one non-peak trip, the system almost always considers the entire through-routed combination to be peak, even if it would not be peak if considered as a single trip.
Yes, this is probably a violation of the Code. But I think there’s a reason it’s survived this long: the inconvenience is small enough to be academic for most people.
As a postscript, I would strongly disagree with the idea that switching fares mid-trip is possible or practical. First, you’re going to have variability in the trip. Someone scheduled to get on the bus at 2:59 won’t know what fare they are going to pay. Second, the driver has better things to think about while driving than futzing with the farebox and farecards. That stuff should happen between trips, for safety. (That farebox futzing while underway won’t be needed anymore is one of the big benefits of taking away the RFA, in my opinion.)
To your first point, people already don’t know what fare they’ll have to pay at 2:59 since, as you pointed out, sometimes there are through-routes that affect the fare in violation of code by charging a peak fare on a non-peak trip.
If we made cash payers always pay peak fare, and let the ORCA system take care of discounting off-peak fares, we wouldn’t have to worry about farebox fumbling.
I like Kyle’s idea. I like it a lot.
They do know what they’ll have to pay, even if it’s not in accordance with the Code, because the peak trips ARE accurately marked on timetables and bus-stop schedules.
Maybe it’s just me, but “if it’s between 6-9am or 3-6pm when I get on the bus, I pay peak fare” seems a lot easier to understand than checking schedules or time tables for a special mark. I understand the difficulty in making the change to fare cards/reader as a driver on the road, but for a rider it seems much better.
It’s not supposed to be easy to understand. That’s why on the online schedule there’s no $ indicator. Always wanna keep ‘em guessin’ :=
Proves that we need a more simplified fare structure around here. I think we are only bus transit agency that has a peak period surcharge, which a zone surcharge is also involved). a flat fare would be nice, but I know that Seattle area reps would object to suburban trips costing the same, though it is a much longer trip. Therefore I would propose getting rid of the peak and zone surcharges, and replace with 2 flat fare fares. One fare would be the all day (local) fare ($2.50), and a suburban express (Premium) fare ($3.00). The fares would be bus route based, so for example, Routes 101, 106, 150, 255, 358 would always be $2.50, regardless time of day, vs. Routes 121, 122, 143, 157, 158, 159, 161 177, 178, 179, 197, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 250, 277, 306, 308, 309, 311, etc) would be S3.00. (This is just an example and not an inclusive route list. You get the drift). This is similar to Los Angeles Metro, where there is a basic fare and a premium fare.
You’d have some very odd situations if you made it strictly all-day vs. peak, like 101 charging the regular fare while 102 (identical for 90% of riders) charges the premium fare. I’d do it by type of route; long-distance expresses get charged the peak fare anytime. This is how it’s done in DC. Although the surcharge in DC is way too high, the system works.
So from Renton you’d probably pay the long-distance fare on the 101 but the local fare on the 106, for example.
NYC does that as well. “Express” bus routes are double the regular bus and subway fare.
I would love for Metro to reorganize their network this way. Peak service is the most expensive to provide, but with all-day services you need a lot less deadheading than routes that serve areas with no service outside of peak.
Though I’d also love to have a high, flat cash fare and distance-based fares for ORCA users.
NYC express buses are much more like ST expresses than they are like Metro expresses. NYC Bus runs Limited variants of routes that are much more akin to our expresses.
This creates difficulty for those riding tunnel buses within the city – hopping a 150 from downtown to Sodo for example. The confusion would get worse when tunnel buses are surfaced, and then you have “premium” and local fares all serving the same downtown corridor.
We use a large assortment of routes – some local, some long distance – to provide combined frequent service on high demand corridors. Having varied fares for these will hurt that part of the system. You could segregate them onto different streets, though.
“This creates difficulty for those riding tunnel buses within the city – hopping a 150 from downtown to Sodo for example.”
That’s what Link is for?
The routes will be separated along these lines downtown after the fall service change when the 3rd Ave suburban routes move to 4th Ave.
Yes, Yes, Yes on simplified fare structure. (I stayed away for as long as humanly possible).
Just the fact that most of us don’t understand the rule(s), and we’re supposed to be among the most knowledgeable as a group, I think the post points out another missing spoke on the wheel.
Peak is supposed to recover more of the cost of running the route, but hey, isn’t that being done on a per bus load basis with much higher load factors in the peak period?
And as far as zones go, aren’t we selling butt time in a seat, regardless of where you are going? Many suburban routes and express routes take about the same amount of time that a ride from 1st hill to upper QA on a local one zone trip. Buses cost X per hour to operate, so why the big deal about charging a 2 zone fare when the trip times are comparable?
Sure, it’s not perfect, but would eliminate another source of confusion, and the new fare could be calculated to be revenue neutral. OK, start the howls from everyone living in Bell Town going to Jackson St. Yeah, you’re gonna get screwed a little bit.
Because the QA bus doesn’t spend an equivalent amount of time deadheading back empty.
That would at least be the justification for a two class bus system – regular and premium fares.
Premium fares could be charged on very long trips (express) where deadheading makes the trip much more expensive to operate. All other regular routes would be on a flat fare per trip, period, as Warren on Beacon Hill proposed.
Premium trip route numbers could have an easy designation suffix, like X, or maybe a $ sign or just a single icon (middle finger extended) to indicate it’s more money.
The actual big deal is that a 2-mile trip could possibly take as long as a 15-mile trip, and that both are considered “premium” services worthy of a surcharge.
Yes, I read in one of the Metro documents that I found searching for a peak fare explaination (doesn’t exist if you use their website search box) that off peak only has an 18% fare recovery. Overall now Metro is near 25% so it’s a sizable differential. Peak buses may have to deadhead, not so much with eastside to seattle routes which are pretty bidirectional, but a full artic one way works out to a pretty good ridership ration when you consider that the reverse commute on those trips might be half the time of the inbound trip. Overall ST express, and I’d assume Metro is similar, has roughly the same cost per boarding as Central Link. Should we be charging a premium for that premium service?
A good head-to-head comparison would be the farebox recovery on routes that run both express versions (featuring deadhead) and non-express versions (featuring service in both directions, including the one supposedly with less demand). Fortunately…
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/2009/2009-RtPerf.pdf
Page 29-31:
Peak 15 — 54%
Peak 15 turnback — 58%
Peak 15 express — 39%
Peak 18 — 48%
Peak 18 turnback — 43%
Peak 18 express — 39%
Peak 28 — 37%
Peak 28 turnback — 39%
Peak 28 express — 30%
So, those exciting express runs, jam packed with smug white collar downtowners who didn’t pay for their monthly passes anyway, are totally costing the system more money than even their parallel, regular-run counterparts.
It’s late and I can’t wade through the whole report. But it’s true that during peak the fare recovery is much higher. As far as specific routes that are express vs “same” non-express it didn’t jump out.
Well, those three examples were each running 7-19% worse for farebox recovery in their gold-plated, unidirectional express versions.
And yet someone suffering the ultra-slow counter-commute gets to pay the same premium fare.
The numbers you’re quoting for the express, 30 – 39% are still way above the system average. How can you single out those routes for a surcharge vs say night owl routes that just eat money?
Because those routes actually offer a different category of service.
It is a premium service — faster, more direct, more convenient, less prone to the problems that plague standard Metro service — but only for the very specific category of riders to whom it is available.
Counter-commuters don’t get to enjoy those benefits. Workers on shifts outside of the classic white-collar employment hours don’t get to enjoy those benefits. Late-night users most certainly do not get to enjoy directness or shorter headways.
Express buses are a special category of service that, as the above numbers show, run the agency a premium when compared to normal services running at the same time. Those who enjoy them should pay for them.
“when you consider that the reverse commute on those trips might be half the time of the inbound trip”
Take I-5 southbound or I-90 westbound into Seattle during afternoon rush hour and you will see that this is not the case. Without the express lanes available, the reverse-direction, deadheading buses have to sit in traffic just as much as the peak-direction buses that are carrying passengers. Even worse, if people want to depend on the bus leaving downtown anywhere close to when it’s supposed to, it is necessary to leave a huge cushion in the schedule, which, when traffic is light, translates into a very long layover downtown. In other words, for a labor perspective Metro has to pay for the time it takes to make the deadhead into downtown under worst-case traffic conditions every day whether traffic is actually that bad or not.
A question on Metro’s fare history–why did they eliminate a higher (by 25 cents) two-zone off-peak fare in the early 2000′s? Was it for the sake of convenience or what?
How about this solution? Bus route that operate only during the peak and only in one direction charge peak fare for every trip they take. Buses that operate all day don’t charge peak fare for any trips they take, at any time.
Do this and lots of the single-direction-peak-only routes will lose riders to competing core, all-day routes that serve the same market. Then, on the next service restructure, get rid of the single-direction-peak-only routes that are losing trips, (and, if necessary, add additional peak trips to the core replacement route so we don’t leave people behind). We lose a little fare revenue, but the system as a whole becomes more efficient. Hopefully the gains outweigh the losses.
Note that many of those unidirectional peak-only services serve areas that don’t have any other service. There’s no way to get to Lake Kathleen on transit when the 111 isn’t running.
But I am of the opinion that these areas are better off served through P&Rs with all-day service, so I could get behind this proposal.
Many North Seattle peak routes have VERY high ridership. They should cost more for the convenience, but they should not be deleted. These folks aren’t the P&R types, they just want to get to work quickly. Again, pay for the convenience.
“These folks aren’t the P&R types, they just want to get to work quickly.”
This gets into the issue of coverage justice. Only a few streets have a peak-express directly from a residential neighborhood to downtown. Those people get a premium service, while their neighbors all around them don’t get that.
For comparison, consider Twin Cities Metro Transit’s fare structure:
We don’t have zones, only express/local fares. “Express” is defined as four miles w/o a passenger stop. Anything with restricted stops but not to that degree is considered “limited” and has no express tax.
We do have peak hour charges, 6-9 AM and 3-6:30 PM, based on time of payment. The farebox itself has an internal clock and resets at the proper times. Fare is based on time of payment. Most routes are “pay as you enter”; however, express buses to the suburbs are “pay as you leave” in the outbound direction. You can see the havoc wreaked!
Transfers are good for 2.5 hours; a transfer from a local off-peak bus is good on local buses until expiry even if peak hour starts before expiry. (Yes, we get a lot of people boarding at 2:55 PM, getting a transfer, and riding one block, for the purpose of avoiding the 50 cent peak-hour tax when riding “for real” later.)
The rules get murky with express transfers. The express tax is 50 cents off-peak and 75 cents peak. An express transfer obtained off-peak requires a 25 cent tax payment if used during peak hour for another express bus.
So, does our system sound better or worse than yours?
How are express buses distinguished from regular buses? Do they have a separate number group or an “X” suffix or a different bus color? Or do you not know until you get inside the bus and see the farebox?
Express buses don’t have a distinctive suffix letter or number group. Nor is the farebox any different. (The entire fare structure is pasted to each farebox on a permanent basis.) The only way to know which buses are considered “express” is from the timetables. In some cases the route number matches a highway number (Route 94 goes down I-94, for example) but this is inconsistent. In the Twin Cities, the suffix letter X usually means the bus terminates at a garage (base in Seattle-speak).
Oh, and the word “Express” is part of the destination sign….
If the word “Express” means “Premium fare” across the board, then that’s sufficient. But if Seattle were to introduce this, it would have to distinguish premium expresses (158, 159) from mundane expresses (41, 101, or especially 66).
Chicago also once had an express surcharge of $0.25 but eliminated it years ago – the express buses are some of the heaviest used (particularly the north and south Lake Shore Drive routes). We just lost a large number of express routes which ran parallel to local routes. Most of the express routes have unique numbers, 14, 6, 147, etc while some have X’s in front (X28 for example, which are usually rush period only).
Oh, by the way the 2.5 hour transfers are to the exact minute, based on time of payment, which the “pay as you leave” routes again wreak havoc with….
And this is why I just buy the $2.50 PugetPass. Problem solved. $90 does magic unless I have to go inter-county.
If you don’t use a peak service during each rush hour, twice a day, pretty much every weekday of the month, the $90 pass is overpaying. I buy the $81 pass.
And although the extra quarter is just an extra quarter, it’s the principle of paying a higher price for significantly worse service (in the counter-commute direction) that bugs me.
Employing the King County Code’s language to extend the surcharge to trips leaving “their origin” at 5:59 (and often not getting anywhere useful until 6:45) would be piling insult upon insult.
The flip side is that you don’t have to agonize over whether to take one trip or not. You just go. And any excess money is going to a transit agency, and one that’s in desperate straits. (And yes, I do pay full price for my pass. Not everybody who commutes to work has a smug free pass.)
If I’m not mistaken, you live on Capital Hill, where you don’t get to take advantage of preferential peak services of any sort.
And, as you say, you pay full price for the thing (I guarantee you that most in the Financial District do not).
Sometimes it’s okay to be offended by paying 30% more than you would in Boston or San Francisco and getting so, so much less.
Everyone who’s on the 15X is going to the Financial District? I suspect some of them are going to the hospitals, SCCC, Bellevue, etc.
The 15X should at least be bidirectional, because people do go to Ballard in the morning and go south in the afternoon.
You suspect wrong. Most students aren’t heading out that early; hospital shifts aren’t quite so allegiant to 9-5. The downtowner expresses are one-seat rides for a very specific audience and few others.
Yes, it would be nice if very fast expresses were bi-directional. It would be even nicer if RapidRide were actually fucking rapid, because then you’d have a rapid trunk line all day and night.
That latter would actually be easier to make happen than the former, and would be much more effective for more people more of the time. But this city focuses so much on the smug satisfaction of downtowners that RapidRide and all the other overpaying riders have been left to rot.
After thinking about this issue, I believe King County code is wrong. When it was written, they were trying to codify King County peak/off-peak policy, and misunderstood how the peak system works. They wrote into law how they thought it worked, but were mistaken.
Another quirk about our fare system that seems not quite right is that riding the Sounder from Tacoma to downtown costs more than riding the 59X for that same trip. Yes, we all know the train costs much more to operate than a bus does, but the train has lots of passenger capacity and, once it’s already operating, the marginal cost of carrying one more passenger is practically zero.
With peak headway between Tacoma and Seattle on the order of every 5-8 minutes, the odds are quite good that over the course of the day, the number of people who would switch to Sounder would be at least one busload. This would mean one less bus that has to run all the way between Tacoma and Seattle 4 times every day (twice in service, twice deadheading back the other way). And the marginal operating cost to the Sounder would be zero because filling what would be otherwise empty seats costs nothing.
I could make a very similar argument in Kent with regards to bus #158 and 159. If those buses cost the same amount as the Sounder, rather than less, ridership on those buses would decline (while ridership on the Sounder would increase), which would justify eliminating these redundant routes in a future service change.
I heard something about a Kent restructuring next year so one can only hope. What’s ironic is the 158 and 159 are 20 minutes slower than Sounder. Of course those 20 minutes might be used up waiting for a transfer at Kent Station if you’re taking Sounder, but deleting those express routes would allow the local routes to be more frequent, which would shorten the waiting time.
When I lived in Sno County and worked downtown, my commuter bus cost more than the local CT bus. I was cool with that because my bus went directly downtown without making detours to every P&R or other destination on the way. In fact, my commute took about the same amount of time as it does now when I live near Bitter Lake, much much closer to downtown. I would pay more for a direct bus to downtown from 130th & Greenwood or Aurora if it meant a fast commute (and one not involving the 358).
I am sure people would be angry if the deadhead type express commuter routes went up in price, but I am positive people would continue riding those routes, when the alternative is doubling your commute time, or paying for parking downtown. And especially when so many people who work downtown get employer-provided bus passes. But I doubt Metro is willing to ride out the angry people part of the process.