Photo by Zargoman

The quarterly ridership report is out, including all the 2010 year-end numbers. As always, there’s on-time data, per-route ridership counts and so on. I wish Metro could regularly release similar numbers.

ST Express ridership is trending down, which is widening the gap in (operating) cost per boarding between express buses and Link.

41 Replies to “Sound Transit 4Q 2010 Ridership”

    1. How do you get there from the home page? From the ST home page, it’s relatively straightforward to find their quarterly reports.

  2. Those “cost per boarding” numbers seem spectacularly low. I’ve read elsewhere (Seattle Times, …) that fares cover as little as 6 percent of total cost. Yet, here they show total costs as $6.44 for light rail!

    Is LINK really that cost effective? Are the numbers for Metro buses that much higher? Is someone cooking the books?

    1. I’ve never seen a 6% number. I’d like to see that article. The highest cost-per-boarding I recall Central Link ever posting was in the $9 range, shortly after opening.

      Metro’s cost-per-boarding for 2009 was $3.90, which makes sense as they run local routes with many more boardings/mile compared to express routes.

      2. If Link’s operating cost is $6.44 per boarding, and Metro’s was $3.90 per boarding, how is Link a “bargain”?

      3. A Link train has a much higher capacity than a bus. I guess you could install an equalizer hitch on the back of an artic but it gets sort of dicey. If you have a large quantity of “cargo” to move then rail is way more efficient. BNSF doesn’t run any> coal buses from Montana to Seattle or Portland.

      4. Bernie Says: If you have a large quantity of “cargo” to move then rail is way more efficient. BNSF doesn’t run any coal buses from Montana to Seattle or Portland.

        Not cargo buses but 10-15 coal trains a day do run to Centralia, WA and Roberts Bank, BC =) Commonly spotted at Auburn Yard

    2. Yeah, I’d like to see as source for that 6% number. If it’s out there it probably comes from CETA or WPC or some other anti-rail hit group.

    3. When comparing service so dissimilar in both purpose and mode I think cost per passenger mile is a better metric (not perfect, but better) and that’s not reported. We can calculate:

      $18.16 Link cost per revenue mile
      $21.51 Sounder cost per revenue mile
      $8.20 ST Express cost per revenue mile

      They don’t give miles per boarding so I think the next best thing is boardings per trip. It would be cost per mile if all boardings were full length of route. I think this favors Link the most since so many boardings are mid route and is least favorable (most accurate) for Sounder.

      ST Express $.29 per mile/boarding
      Sounder $.06 per mile/boarding
      Link $.24 per mile/boarding

      Not surprising Sounder is the most “efficient” but also represents the biggest subsidy (Sprawl Rail). Link and ST Express are close in cost but light rail encourages density much more than ST Express. ST Express takes cars of the road (reduces congestion) directly. Link relies on change in land use patterns that eliminate the need for cars on the road. Of course these are operational costs not capital costs. Link certainly has potential but needs much higher ridership to fulfill it’s potential. Servicing the construction debt pretty much doubles it’s true cost. But, if you believe that money would otherwise be spent on building freeways to mirror ST Express routes…

      1. It seems counter intuitive that sprawl rail is more efficient because its well used and that high density rail needs more passengers.

        The only way to justify have an autocratic view of how and where people should live, because your own numbers point to the efficiency of sprawl.

      2. Sorry and this may be deleted as ad hominem but your “argument” sounds about as lucid as a statement from Moammar Kadafi. It’s “easy” to get riders to buy cheap property in Black Diamond if you subsidize their commute into Seattle with Sounder. It’s not so easy to convince people to pay a premium for in City housing by subsidizing a short commute via Link that has other options which offset the time/cost penalty. (aside… on the WSF which is part of the “highway system” you will be arrested by WSP for drinking a beer while waiting an hour or more in the parking lot for a WSF because you’re in violation of the open container law but it’s perfectly legal and encouraged to buy and drink a beer while actually on the ferry!)

      3. I know I’ve said this before, but for the record, Link’s cost per boarding is going to drop through the floor once it reaches the U-District and once again at Northgate.

        At one point I added up all the ridership on the 71/2/3/4/6/7/9 and 66 routes and it’s close to 25k. Either by 2016 or 2021, almost all of those riders will be served either in part or whole by Link; and they will be served far faster, more reliably and at zero cost to Metro. That more than doubles the current ridership before we’ve even considered future growth, Capitol Hill station, S 200th St station, other service restructuring, induced demand*, and further in the future, land use changes and more extensions.

        The Ranier Valley segment is indeed ultimately justified by long-term land use changes. It was built as a starter line because it was cheap and easy compared to U-Link, served lots of low income and minority people (boosting its federal funding), had decent if unspectacular short-term ridership, and made the crucial connection to the airport (albeit by the long way.) Its ridership should grow steadily in the long run as the area densifies, gas prices steadily rise, mass-market hydrogen cars fail to appear, and John Bailo’s hydrogen stock speculation fails to pay for his retirement.

        This peanut gallery sniping about Link falling short of ST best-guess ridership targets etc. will seem silly in ten years. In short, if Link were a stock, I’d go long on it.

        * I for one would travel to the U-District more if doing so didn’t suck so much. I’m delaying my plans for a professional masters degree in part because the early evening commute to the UW is awful.

      4. This definition of efficiency would support a Tacoma to Seattle alignment via Spokane.

      5. Bruce,

        The cost to Metro for U/North Link won’t be zero, because of the revenue-sharing formula. Metro’s monthly revenue will take a big hit.

      6. “It’s “easy” to get riders to buy cheap property in Black Diamond if you subsidize their commute into Seattle with Sounder”

        The residents came first, not Sounder. Sounder and the express buses are ways to cope with the fact that a lot of people are living in suburbs and exurbs. I doubt many of them moved to those areas because Sounder and the buses were there. They moved there because they wanted a large house with a yard at a cheaper price, and most of them would drive if the transit weren’t there. We want them to ride transit because that’s X gallons of gas not being burned, with all the accompanying congestion and pollution. Eliminating exurban transit will not make those people go away; only a very few of them will move to the city to be where the transit is. (At the same time, I realize we may have to reduce service in the exurbs to apply limited revenue to where it can accomplish the most — in the city and inner-ring burbs.)

        Regarding Black Diamond and Sounder specifically, my guess is that the usage is almost zero because Black Diamond is so far from Kent Station or Auburn Station. Why wouldn’t they take the express bus which is much more direct?

      7. @Brent True, I hadn’t thought of that. Although it saves Metro from running all those busses express on I-5, so that offsets it a little bit.

    4. Possibly that 6% figure comes from people who figure in capital costs in computing cost per boarding. The numbers in this report just reflect the cost of operating the thing each day.

      1. On my last reading of Sound Transit’s financials, they already include amortization of the capitalized costs in their operating budget. Still doesn’t get to 6%.

  4. The thing that I find most interesting is Link’s percentage of scheduled trips operated at only 98.7% …. That, combined with the bus-esque on-time performance, continues to make a good argument for crossing gates on MLK.

    1. The on-time problem is solved. Link is going schedule-free. ;)

      Also, I don’t think the crossing gates will be considered (if ever) until frequency is planned to increase, since realigning the traffic signals will be a major investment. I’m not yet convinced that frequency will increase above 7.5/10 minutes when UW Station opens, if four-car trains are projected to be sufficient with that frequency.

  5. LINK from the airport serves travelers who would normally pay $40 for a cab ride.

    On weekends, LINK from Tukwila serves sports fans who would pay $20 to $40 for a parking space.

    If the cost of transport is $6.44, then compared to free market rates, these riders are getting an extraordinary discount. At the same time, they are contributing little or nothing to the planning agenda of LINK.

    Therefore, I would suggest that the fare for boarding from or to the Airport and for using LINK from Tukwila on weekends be raised to at least $15. (The Rainer Valley riders would pay the same as they are now).

    This would generate a profit from these trips that could be used to self-subsidize the rest of the line and expansion.

    1. For me, Link from the airport doesn’t replace a $40 cab ride. It replaces the $15 I would pay for a couple days at the cheapest offsite parking lot I can find. And I don’t usually travel alone, either; that $15 covers all 5 of us. Oh, man, I guess the market-rate Link fare SHOULD only be $2.50! Math is fun.

      2. Well, yes, families create difficulty in pricing for rail versus car, don’t they. Perhaps there is some way to use the ORCA ticketing system to cover a whole family for a single (but larger) price for event and single-time airport to downtown travel.

    2. How would you tell the difference between someone riding to or from the airport and someone riding to or from the City of SeaTac or to one of the buses that serve station along International Boulevard so you could charge the higher fare for airport travel?

      1. Provide the lower fee to ORCA card users based on regular travel and charge single time users (travelers, event goers and tourists) the higher fees.

    3. The fare collection system may not allow it, but at the Newark Airport the train into Manhattan costs more when leaving the airport stop than it does from the flanking stations – logical for the shorter ride, clearly a cash cow compared to the longer ride.

      Captured riders I suppose, but the train is still a great deal compared to buses, car services or taxis as a way to get into the city.

      1. Funny, I used that exact train in January. I had to make my arrangements quickly (funeral) and flew into Newark but had to get to Queens. I took NJ Transit to LIRR. Very convenient train and even at the cost of the fares was quick and saved me money versus Shuttle and cab. So, good parallel of how system can make money, yet still be a bargain, and also serve daily users at a lower fare.

      3. I’ve heard that those with smartcards or monthly passes don’t pay the SFO surcharge.

        In any case, it’s too late for SeaTac because the station is outside the airport, it theoretically will have TOD or city hall on the other side someday, and it’s an open walk-through to cross the street. At Newark and SFO, there’s nothing but airport around the station, and at JFK there’s a separate entrance from the AirTrain to the subway as opposed to the regular subway entrance, and the surcharge is charged at that entrance.

    4. “LINK from the airport serves travelers who would normally pay $40 for a cab ride.

      On weekends, LINK from Tukwila serves sports fans who would pay $20 to $40 for a parking space.”

      That’s ignoring all the other people who use the stations. Airport workers. Locals taking flights. Locals going to meet visitors. Students and backpackers who can’t or won’t take a taxi. The theoretical TOD and city hall that will be built next to the station whenever the city and property owner come to an agreement. At Tukwika there’s commuters and people going to Pike Place, the U, the courthouse, a night on the town, or wherever else they go. All these are probably a majority of weekly users — not those avoiding $40 taxis or $30 game parking. There are also shuttles which are cheaper than taxis, but these people chose to take public transit. And it’s a train directly to downtown, just as they expect to find in SFO, Chicago, NY, St Louis, London, Duesseldorf, and many other cities.

  6. Interestingly in Vancouver at YVR there is an additional $5 charge when buying a ticket for the Canada Line at YVR. No additional charge when coming to YVR. Purpose of this charge is to pay off the $300 million the airport authority put forward for capital costs of the Canada Line.

    1. Again – YVR and probably Newark have no local residents near the station. I don’t believe that will work for SeaTac/Airport Station.

      1. In the case of Newark’s airport station, I don’t believe there is any way to get to the station other than by train—there isn’t any bus service or parking.

    2. Slight correction:

      The YVR Airport Authority put forward $300 million for the part of Canada Line from Bridgeport to the airport. That money was raised from the Airport’s general revenue sources, including the airport improvement fee on each outbound ticket. One can ride the Canada Line for free between the 3 airport stations (Airport, Sea Island, and Templeton). Once one goes beyond Templeton, one must pay the regular fare + $5 surcharge ONLY ON CASH FARES. People using annual or monthly passes or faresaver tickets need not pay the surcharge. As mentioned above, there is no surcharge going to the airport.

      All surcharge money goes to the Translink (the transit authority) and not the Airport Authority.

Comments are closed.