Community Transit announced Monday afternoon that it has taken delivery of a “fuel cell electric bus” (FCEB), stating it’s the first of its kind in the Puget Sound region. The hydrogen-powered bus was made by New Flyer and is part of a pilot program to assess potential vehicles as Community Transit works towards replacing 30% of its 260-bus fleet (78 buses) to zero-emissions vehicles by 2030. Community Transit’s Zero Emission Bus Transition Plan (pdf) details how they aim to achieve a transition to 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2044.
In addition to the fuel cell bus, Community Transit also recently took delivery of its first Battery Electric Bus (BEB), which was built by Gillig. Everett Transit started testing battery buses in 2020, and as of 2023, 15 of its 45 buses are BEBs (pdf).
From Community Transit’s press release:
Because of Snohomish County’s varied routes and terrain, and its large service area, the agency will test and evaluate the performance of both types of electric buses in service. Close monitoring will validate the performance assumptions in the agency’s transition plan, which envisions use of FCEB technology on heavy duty routes like Swift bus rapid transit (BRT) lines where greater battery range would be necessary.
FCEBs have fuel cells that convert hydrogen into electricity through a catalytic process that separates hydrogen molecules into protons & electrons. The onboard batteries that power the vehicle get charged and the sole byproduct is water. Besides having greater range in terms of coverage area, FCEBs are less impacted by cold weather. With FCEBs, the conversion of hydrogen to electricity produces heat, which can be used to heat the passenger cabin.
Electricity provided by Snohomish County Public Utility District is generated by about 96.5% carbon-neutral sources, but fuel cell-worthy hydrogen, especially carbon-free “green” hydrogen, are hard to find in the PNW. Community Transit’s press release notes that long-term operation of vehicles powered by hydrogen (such as their FCEB) will require establishment of a reliable and sustainable source of hydrogen to the region.
Bringing Hydrogen to the Pacific Northwest
Last year, the Seattle Times ($) reported that the US Department of Energy selected the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Association (PNWH2), a “multi-state nonprofit coalition of public and private partners planning to create a hydrogen network in the Pacific Northwest” for a potential award of up to $1 billion to develop a “Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub”. Across the nation, six other organizations were selected to develop hydrogen generation capacity in their home regions.
In the Pacific Northwest, eight cities are expected to be the center of projects as part of the PNWH2 “Hub” projects: Centralia, Bellingham, East Wenatchee, Kennewick, and Chehalis in Washington; Boardman and Baker City in Oregon, and St. Regis in Montana.
There have been no updates from PNWH2 since the announcement of federal funding last year, so implementation of these projects remains to be seen.
In the meantime, the Washington State Department of Commerce released a report in January describing recommendations for deploying “green hydrogen” and renewable fuels in the state. The report notes that current green hydrogen production capacity in the state is “near zero” and highlights the need to ramp up production very quickly to meet the needs of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like FCEBs. In the meantime, a relatively common method of producing hydrogen is reacting methane (CH4) with steam (H2O) to produce hydrogen (H2), and carbon monoxide (CO); in the process, some of the carbon monoxide unavoidably reacts with the steam to create carbon dioxide (CO2).
Community Transit’s transition plan recognizes that early adoption of fuel cell buses may require purchasing hydrogen produced from carbon-based sources until green hydrogen enters the local market. Lewis County Transit, which claimed the title of being the first agency to receive FCEBs in the Pacific Northwest in March of this year, is reportedly planning to generate their own green hydrogen via electrolysis.
The Zero-Emission Bus Transition Plan
Community Transit’s transition plan achieves a zero-emission transit bus fleet by 2038, assuming 191 BEBs and 90 FCEBs. Afterwards, Community Transit plans to procure 19 additional battery buses, bringing the total fleet to 300 zero-emission buses. The timeline for infrastructure construction and vehicle procurement is neatly summarized in a chart estimating infrastructure costs and replacement fleet composition through 2050.
Testing of the its new electric buses will allow Community Transit to validate and modify the transition plan as needed. The buses procured this year are not included in overall count of zero-emissions buses expected to be procured in the future.
It’s interesting that this is just hitting the news now. Because I thought CT took delivery of their first Hydrogen Bus a few months ago.
But it is nice to see that at least some of the local transit agencies are trying to innovate. The really good thing about what CT is doing is that they are going to be able to get direct head-to-head comparisons between Hybrid, BEB, and FCEB transit operations. That is good data to have. Both regionally and nationally.
Congrats to CT.
> thought CT took delivery of their first Hydrogen Bus a few months ago.
You may be confusing CT with Lewis County Transit, which I mention in article as having received their first FCEB in March of this year, and were the first in the state to start testing hydrogen buses.
It will be interesting to see if hydrogen production takes off in the PNW. It’s hard to get a realistic assessment of the electrical efficiency of developing hydrogen-based transportation since hydrogen is not yet being produced by electrolysis at large scales, so current production costs are relatively high. That, and the high cost of building new pipelines for hydrogen for delivery, are some major headwinds for widespread hydrogen fuel cell adoption.
But I agree, it’s worth determining the various technologies in our climate and topography to assess cost and benefit. I’m sure Community Transit and Lewis County Transit will be able to learn a lot from each other.
@Nathan,
Nope, not confusing CT with LCT at all. Turns out CT received this bus back in March, but waited to roll it out until they could wrap it and install their own tech suite. I didn’t realize CT even had a custom tech suite.
I just assumed these would arrive ready to roll (minus the wrap).
But oh well, at least that explains the delay. And, yes, I confirmed the reason for the delay.
But it is interesting that both CT and LCT are out ahead of Metro on tech innovation. I just assumed that Metro, being the 700 lb gorilla in the room, would be the most likely agency to do work like this, but I guess not.
And now I am curious about what goes into the “CT tech suite”.
Interesting, since they say in their press release that they still need to do all that. I wonder if LCT and CT actually got their buses at the same time, but CT was fine with waiting until they had more time to test and prep.
The tech suite would be their tracking and communications system/radios, fare collections/ORCA readers, security cameras, etc.
@Nathan,
“ they say in their press release that they still need to do all that”
Ah, no. I believe the press release is referring to work they need to do on subsequent FCEB’s that they are taking procession of, not to work that they still need to do on this specific bus.
I believe this specific bus is now ready to roll. Assuming of course that they have hydrogen that they can put into it.
I’m not doubting that they’ve already done some work (they’ve obviously had time to wrap the bus and take photos), but the release specifically states:
The new zero emissions buses are currently undergoing preparations for their service debut. The buses are being outfitted with onboard technology and other standard equipment, such as a fare box so they can run just like the existing Community Transit fleet.
They only have the one BEB and one FCEB.
@Nathan,
The key word there is “buses”, as in plural.
What CT rolled out is FCEB #1. The other “buses” (plural) are undergoing tech suite installation as they arrived.
And I confirmed this with CT.
Someone at CT told you they have purchased additional FCEBs and/or BEBs and are outfitting them already?
Their public Transition Plan is explicit that they will only pilot one BEB and one FCEB this year.
@Nathan,
I was told that the tech suite in FCEB #1 is installed. Full stop. And I trust my source.
But that doesn’t mean that either of these buses are ready to carry members of the general public on regular routes. That is why CT is only going to have one FCEB and one BEB in regular service this year, and the FCEB won’t enter regular service at least until the fall.
There is a lot that goes into these tech demonstration projects. You don’t just buy a new type of bus and put it out on the road with the general public onboard.
And don’t forget, CT still needs to work on H2 fueling stations. Having a bus that is ready to go doesn’t do you much good if you can’t fuel it in service.
I’ve done some reading about this topic. Apparently, hydrogen buses were tried in Norway, but found to be way too expensive to operate compared to battery buses. Part of the problem is that you need about three times as much electricity to make green hydrogen to feed into fuel cells to generate electricity as you do to simply charge a battery. Also, hydrogen is difficult to transport and handle, and hydrogen fueling stations have very high operating cost compared to electric vehicle charging stations.
If the issue with batteries is cold weather range, a much simpler solution, rather than switching to hydrogen, is to use propane to heat the cabin, preserving battery power for propulsion. Not fully zero emission, but a simple furnace is much quieter and less maintenance than a diesel engine, and bus is still fully zero-emission during the summer months. Over time, as batteries become cheaper, winter heating can gradually shift from fuel to battery power, but that shift can be decoupled from using battery power to actually move the bus.
(Winter heating is a much bigger issue for an electric bus than an electric car because the bus has a much bigger cabin to heat and has doors opening constantly, letting cold air in; a bus is also constrained in that it can never, ever stop to charge in the middle of a route with passengers on board, so its battery must be sized for the coldest possible winter day, even though such days actually occur only very rarely).
That makes sense. The Japanese bet on fuel cells and it turns out that battery advancements came much quicker than expected. I’m sure it is rather embarrassing given that they have been the best at making cars for generations now. (Oh, the shame!) There are only three fuel-cell cars available in the US and most people (including myself) couldn’t name one of them. Honda gave up on the Clarity, and has now developed a hybrid fuel cell/electric bus (with big batteries) that you can plug in. It is probably most humiliating for Toyota, as they made a bigger bet and they were the ones that put hybrids on the map. The Insight came first, but the Prius was an amazing car. Really good mileage and extremely high quality. They had way more horsepower than people assumed and you could fit quite a bit in there (the back seats were roomy as well). I get that a company that simply nailed it with that car would assume they know what was coming next, but at this point it is clear that they didn’t. Electric batteries won.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a41103863/hydrogen-cars-fcev/
“Apparently, hydrogen buses were tried in Norway, but found to be way too expensive to operate compared to battery buses”
If this is accurate, it’s another case of American transit agencies and governments trying to reinvent the wheel. Like they do with metros, BRT, and passenger rail service. If it’s outside the US, it doesn’t exist. If it’s outside the English-speaking countries, it really doesn’t exist.
“a bus is also constrained in that it can never, ever stop to charge in the middle of a route with passengers on board”
Germany is experimenting with trolley trucks, which have freeway lane segments with trolley wire, and the trucks can connect to it to charge en route without stopping. So far it’s just an experiment around the Frankfurt airport, but it’s a concept that could be pursued. The concept is more connect-to-charge than being on-wire full time.
For an agency like King County Metro, the concept of combining trolley wire with batteries has some interesting potential with so many bus routes traversing sections downtown that already have overhead wire. Taking the 62 for example, if the wired section downtown takes 10 minutes to drive through and the entire route takes an hour, simply running the bus off the wire when it’s downtown already reduces the needed battery size by over 15%. But, I think the real number is quite a bit better than that. The amp limit of trolley wire has to be pretty high simply to allow Queen Anne buses to get up the hill, and a bus that pulls this level of power constantly, both while moving and while stopped, is actually putting quite a lot of energy into the battery.
The primary argument against such a scheme would would be the cost of the trolley poles. One would think it would be cheaper than the battery capacity it would replace, although, if trolley buses are a limited market, maybe mass production considerations would dictate otherwise. You’d also of course need a bus that can connect and disconnect the trolley poles very quickly and reliably in order to do it with passengers on board without service delays, and I’m not sure currently available trolley buses are up to it.
“The primary argument against such a scheme would would be the cost of the trolley poles.”
Again, that’s the backward nature of US transit planning. Other countries look at what’s most effective, and install extensive trolleybus networks, metro networks, high-quality BRT, and all-day regional rail. We fret about the cost of trolley poles and wire, and argue whether a neighborhood deserves frequent transit, and widen highways, and put most of our trust in electric cars to solve everything.
I agree with asdf2. Metro already has plenty of infrastructure in place for this. It is also worth noting that buses can charge up at the end or their route. Maybe not a full charge, but enough so that they lose power slowly through the day but sill have enough to make it.
It is perfectly reasonable for agencies in the rest of the country (and CT) to look at completely new alternatives (whether battery or fuel-cell) but Metro is one of a handful of agencies that has existing trackless trolleys and they should look at leveraging that.
A hydrogen fuel cell powered passenger ferry constructed by All American Marine in Bellingham just got US Coast Guard approval to begin service on San Francisco Bay.
USCG Approves First Hydrogen-Powered Ferry to Operate in U.S. Waters
The energy balance with fuel cells is terrible. Electricity to hydrogen conversion is about 50%, and then about 50% again in the fuel cell to get electricity out. Fuel cell conversion is poor, but for buses it’s ok-ish because they can use the waste heat as vehicle interior heating, just like you would in a Diesel engine.
However, hydrogen does have an advantage over batteries in terms of weight and amount of energy storage possible in a given space. Those advantages aren’t necessarily as large as you might think, due to the inefficiency.
Hyundai has been selling a hydrogen fuel-cell car, the Nexo, for a few years now, but it’s only available in California. They’re apparently working on a new hydrogen “supercar”.
The use case for H2 in transit is range and duty cycle. You can’t send out a battery-electric bus out to run all day and/or long-range routes. And you can’t refuel one in less than several hours. Initial findings from agencies with FCBs in use show they can match the performance characteristics of a diesel bus and can re-fuel within minutes, albeit at a higher capital and operating cost. The X factor is fuel supply. Right now it doesn’t exist in green form in the PNW, but it could relatively soon with the boost coming from Uncle Sam. CT as I read it is testing the waters (pun intended) to find out if this bus can meet its needs. Whatever they learn will be good info to have.
Batteries require significant capital cost to set up the charging operations, but once that’s paid for, the electricity, itself, is very cheap. Green hydrogen is always going to cost much more than that, both because you need 3X the electricity as input to make the fuel, and also because transporting hydrogen in trucks is much more expensive than transporting electricity via power lines.
Storing of hydrogen is also not cheap either. It’s not like storing diesel fuel, where you just fill up a dumb metal container and that’s it. To fit a large amount of hydrogen in a reasonably-sized space, you have to make it a liquid, which requires cooling it to just a few degrees above absolute zero. Hydrogen also has very tiny molecules, which makes it highly prone to leaks, not to mention the risk of explosion.
Of course, in theory, as expensive as hydrogen is, it could still be cost-competitive if the government subsidies it enough. But, but the problem is, one-time grant money to buy the buses and build the fueling apparatus isn’t enough, you’d need continual, never-ending subsidies for the fuel itself, and the moment the subsidies stop, operating costs will balloon to much more than a diesel bus. The Inflation Reduction Act may be offering some subsidy money now, but it would be foolish to depend on that over the long term. Depending on how the upcoming election goes, such money could even disappear as soon as next year. Compare to batteries, where even if grant money is needed to build the charging stations, once those charging stations are there, no ongoing grant money is needed to operate them. It’s much more stable.
“the electricity, itself, is very cheap”
It’s cheap in the northwest now because of the hydro dams and the Bonneville Power Adminstration rate structure. We get BPA power at close to the marginal cost of generating it. Some back east would like to take that away that “northwest federal subsidy” and set it to the average national electric rate, which would be higher for us but lower for other users.
Electricity is extremely cheap compared to “clean hydrogen” no matter where you get it. No question though that using electricity in this region is worth it just from a financial standpoint (e. g. adding trolley wire) while in other regions it might not be (they would be better off with diesel).
Yes, the main advantage to fuel cells is that they can be “filled up” much quicker. But the gap is shrinking. You can often “top off” with electric charging, sometimes while the bus is moving (via wire). Even without wire it is realistic to assume that charging stations can be added close to where the buses layover. Thus when the driver takes a break, the bus is charged up. That, along with a full charge at the beginning of the day may be sufficient. If it isn’t then it might be in the near future.
I just don’t see a future for hydrogen buses. It requires a complete restructuring of our infrastructure and if it isn’t happening in Europe or Asia it isn’t going to happen here. The US is betting on batteries and that seems like a safe bet. Power lines are already ubiquitous. With hydrogen you have to do everything. You have to produce carbon-free hydrogen (which is rare). It is point source so maybe you could still make it from natural gas and then apply a carbon-capture system but that has a long way to go. Then once you have the fuel you have to ship it. Maybe you could change over the natural gas pipelines, but that would require some work. In contrast electricity is found pretty much everywhere a bus goes. Batteries definitely have their issues, but it just seems like they are much smaller compared to hydrogen.
If we see widespread use of fuel cells it will probably be with freight trains and ships first. These start out in major ports and then spend a lot of time in the middle of nowhere. Thus the port would have the proper equipment to refill the fuel cells while fuel cells offer a much better power-to-weight ratio than batteries. Maybe in twenty years this could spread to its use in buses, but my guess is battery technology (and electric infrastructure) will always be a step ahead.
It’s fantastic news that CT is finally getting aboard with going green. As they have the highest transit sales tax in the state, 1.2%, tied with Thurston County’s Intercity Transit, who have zero fares while CT’s are amongst the highest in the state, they should be investing in new initiatives, safety, and service vs. expensive, non-productive advertising on national broadcasts that persuade few, if any non-riders to take transit. The excuse about their service area is an excuse, for the bulk of their service is in South Snohomish County, where they have plenty of routes that are optimal for testing these buses, such as the workhorse #101 that goes from Aurora Village/Shoreline to Mariner P&R, mostly on highway 99, a series of straight, moderate speed stretches with low elevation gains. The 201/2 between Smoky Point and Lynnwood Transit Center is would be another excellent choice. Hopefully, this news signals a shift from being a follower in regional transit to returning to being a leader, as they were in 2009 under CEO Joyce Eleanor when they introduced Swift BRT between Aurora Village and downtown Everett.
Community Transit has more frequent bus routes and better coverage than Pierce Transit or Intercity Transit, and also the Swift lines and those Seattle express routes, so that’s where its higher tax revenue and fares are going. All three of them are far behind where they should be for a suburban population to get around without a car. They should have their core routes in and between the largest cities running every 15 minutes daytime. Community Transit gets the closest to it. Putting money into hydrogen buses or battery buses instead of more service just keeps people in their cars, and that’s several times worse for the environment than a number of diesel bus routes.
@Mike Orr,
“ Putting money into hydrogen buses or battery buses instead of more service just keeps people in their cars,”
This is just a tech demonstration project. As such, the economics are completely different than for a regular old bus. Usually these projects involve partnerships with funding from various sources that aren’t typically available for regular bus service.
The point of this project isn’t to convert the fleet. It’s to collect data on how these buses perform in real world situations. And to get data on their operational costs and issues.
This data will inform CT’s decision making process going forward. That is exactly as it should be — collect high quality and specific data and then proceed in an informed manner.
So give credit where credit is due. CT has a goal of moving to full zero emissions. This is exactly the type of tech project that CT needs to perform to facilitate that transition.
Yes, I applaud those experiments. I was just arguing against sentiments that we should put a lot of resources into converting the entire bus fleet right now. Maybe I misread transitr’s comment; I took it as get a lot of hydrogen buses on the high-volume routes now, and maybe they’re just talking about where to deploy the one bus.
But King County is going through an overly-eager plan to convert all the Metro buses to electric now. That’s dedicating a significant amount of tax resources to the conversion, at a time we need those more for frequency and reliability. Don’t throw away or sell recent diesel buses en masse: run them each to their end of life, and then replace them with an electric bus. That may take ten or fifteen years, but even diesel buses have far fewer emissions than the equivalent number of people driving cars. It’s not the small emissions from a few hundred buses we need to worry about; it’s the huge emissions from two million cars that’s the problem.
@Mike Orr,
My comments were directed only at CT and their tech demonstration project. CT seems to be taking a data driven approach to moving towards zero emissions, which is as it should be.
But Metro?
Metro is a political beast, and they can’t seem to get out of their own way lately. Maintaining 80% of their pre-COVID route structure while only generating 60% of pre-COVID ridership is a recipe for budgetary disaster. And running 30% OT to maintain that underutilized 80% just makes things worse.
But, near as I can tell, they are doing it for social justice and equity reasons. If that is an agency’s reason for existing, then fine. I have no trouble with that conceptually, but it is a political decision and not a transit decision.
Same with Metro going whole hog on BEB’s. If the politicians holding the purse strings say, “Do it”, and they provide additional funding to do it, then who cares.
But if they say “Do it” and don’t provide additional funding, then bad on Metro for not having the organizational strength to push back against unfunded mandates during a time of already difficult budgetary pressures.
You speak of “Metro” doing this when Metro is only obeying King County’s policies. Metro is a county department. The county council asked Metro to focus on equity and to keep its network as intact as possible. Metro has rightly shifted service hours from some peak expresses to all-day and weekend service, following ridership-pattern changes.
Keeping service at 80% encourages ridership to grow, and recognizes that it is growing and getting closer to that target. Reducing service to 60% would only drive riders away and may trigger a death spiral. We need to fix the underserved corridors in Metro’s performance reports, not make it worse.
Equity is ridership to some extent. The equity-emphasis areas are the same ones where ridership didn’t go down, and where service is being added to most match demand.
You could give some examples of what you want Metro to downsize, in an open thread. Which routes are too frequent or superfluous, where?
@Lazarus — I get it. You hate Metro. What bothers many of us (including me) is the hypocrisy when it comes to your writing. Consider some examples:
1) Truncating buses at Link stations. There are trade-offs with this approach, but you’ve written repeatedly about how important this is. Fair enough. You continue to attack Metro for not truncating aggressively enough. But they have! They did it even when many said they shouldn’t (UW Link). They have done so repeatedly and now almost all buses are truncated. In contrast, CT continues to run buses downtown from Snohomish County. Not to First Hill (or downtown adjacent places) but right through the center of downtown, very close to the four downtown Link stations. Or how about ST itself? Again they continue to run the 510 right to the middle of downtown. They will do so after Lynnwood Link! Not one word about how they should truncate the bus, while you write about how Metro should truncate buses that are already truncated. In the south end ST runs the mother of all express buses – the 586. The poorly performing bus manages to run from Tacoma all the way to the U-District despite Link service from downtown to the U-District being available for years! CT and ST are much worse when it comes to not truncating, and yet you constantly just focus on Metro.
2) BRT projects. You seem to be fixated on CT routes like the Orange Line while ignoring similar projects in Seattle, that have many other advantages. The Orange Line has off-board payment, but little (if any) right-of-way. The stop spacing is so wide that other buses have to cover for it. This results in poor frequency overall (with the Community Transit system) which of course means that many riders prefer the Swift routes since they are the only ones that don’t require a lot of waiting. There are trade-offs with every approach but you seem to be oblivious to the drawbacks here. In contrast, you have completely ignored straightforward projects in Seattle that have a lot more advantages and none of the drawbacks. For example the Rapid Ride H Line has off-board payment, BAT lanes and signal priority. It runs more often and carries a lot more riders than the Orange Line. Most importantly, it is the only bus route on the corridor. This means that from a network perspective, it doesn’t force other buses to run less often. Feel free to debate the merits of each approach but in my opinion it is just a lot better than the Orange Line. Then there are the various BRT projects operated by Sound Transit which can only be considered fiascos. From Tacoma to Lake Forest Park there have been massive, avoidable cost overruns. I can only imagine if Metro had done the same thing. You would be full of vitriol for the agency, but since it is ST they get a free pass. Just about any neutral observer would say that of the various agencies in the area, Metro is doing the best job with their BRT system. It isn’t perfect. Many (including myself) would like to replace it with something focused on regions not routes. But compared to the other agencies it is doing a much better job. Yet not one word of praise for buses like the H Line and this is clearly because it is Metro.
You take every chance to attack Metro, even when it is off topic! Holy cow, we are discussing a hydrogen fuel-cell project in CT, and yet it turns into a rant about how terrible Metro is. Why? Because they are aggressively pursuing a battery-powered solution? Are you actually claiming that CT is right and Metro is wrong in this case? Are you actually claiming that investing in fuel-cell buses is better than investing in battery buses? Seriously?
It is just ridiculous. If the tables were turned (and Metro was doing what is likely to be a failed experiment) then you would let the world know how bad Metro is. I have no idea why, but despite all the evidence you seem to think that Metro is the only agency that makes mistakes, and that the other agencies are near flawless.
Metro is a political beast, and they can’t seem to get out of their own way lately. Maintaining 80% of their pre-COVID route structure while only generating 60% of pre-COVID ridership is a recipe for budgetary disaster. And running 30% OT to maintain that underutilized 80% just makes things worse.
There you go again. All the transit agencies are political. In general I would say that Sound Transit has way more political problems (just due to their makeup) than Metro. I’m not alone in that opinion, and lots of people have said the same thing.
As for ridership, it is down across the board. On the existing parts of Link, it is down. The only reason ridership has gone up for Link is because they created a new addition. You can almost think of is as two lines: The old line (from UW to Angle Lake) and the new line (from UW to Northgate). Ridership on the old line is way down. It is striking that ridership on various stations of the old line is down, despite connecting seamlessly with the new line. You would think that with the 41 no longer running to downtown (and having been replaced with Link) ridership on the downtown stations would be way up, but instead they are down.
As for Sound Transit buses, they too are way down. In fact, they have lost a much higher percentage of riders than Metro. In January 2019 they had 61,000 riders a day. In January of this year they 27,000. That is a massive drop-off in ridership and yet not one peep criticizing the agency. Or consider Sounder. North Sounder carried 1,700 riders a day back in January 2019. This year it carried 300. Holy cow! What a drop-off. Keep in mind, it is extremely expensive to run those trains. So have you called for replacing them with buses, or just ending them? No, of course not.
Or how about Community Transit. They are not even close to what they were prior to the pandemic. Their ridership peaked in 2008.
Does that mean these agencies should all cut service? Of course not. That would be a terrible idea. That would basically just cause all of them to go through a ridership-service spiral. The biggest problem Metro has right now is a driver shortage and funding problem. Various routes that should run more often don’t. The last thing we want to do is make it worse (for Metro or any other agency).
@Mike Orr,
“ Keeping service at 80% encourages ridership to grow”
Sort of like the transit equivalent of, “Build it and they will come”? That might work in the movies, but this isn’t Hollywood.
The problem for Metro is finances. Running 80% of their pre-COVID network with 60% of the ridership, and doing so with 30% OT, is very expensive. And structuring routes around social equity and not transit performance is also very expensive.
At some point the piper must be paid. Either Metro is going to need more cash to keep their current service levels, or they are going to have to get their financial house in order.
I suspect Metro will go the more cash route, but we will see.
“ Keeping service at 80% encourages ridership to grow”
“Sort of like the transit equivalent of, “Build it and they will come”?”
Exactly. If you build it, they might come. If you don’t build it, they definitely won’t. The nature of transit is it has to run every day in order for it to be available to you the day you need it.
“The problem for Metro is finances. Running 80% of their pre-COVID network with 60% of the ridership, and doing so with 30% OT, is very expensive.”
Let Metro worry about its budget. You don’t know what its finances are, or how easily it can afford this pattern. When/if Metro needs to change or cut, it will tell us. In the meantime we don’t need to speculate about things we know nothing about.
@Mike Orr,
“ In the meantime we don’t need to speculate”
It’s not speculation, it is simple math.
It might be possible to wave off the 60% ridership recovery of Metro as having minimal impact on their finances. After all, Metro never really had very good farebox recovery anyhow. So losing 40% of your low farebox recovery might be survivable.
But 30% OT? That is a big number. That really isn’t sustainable long term. Metro is going to have to get that under control. Fast.
The easiest way to cut OT is to cut routes or to cut frequency. Basically right size the agency. It’s what the other agencies have done. I don’t think Metro will do that, but we will see.
But hey, who really cares? So far the really big transit news this year has been Swift Orange and the opening of the ELSL. The big news for the rest of the year will be the opening of LLE and the CT restructures to eliminate expresses to Seattle and to extend Swift Blue to the 185th St Station. Whatever will happen at Metro will have no impact on any of this.
“It’s not speculation, it is simple math.”
The point is you don’t know the rest of Metro’s budget, or the totality of its financial and other decisions. It’s in a context. Metro can cut service or it can try to attract riders to reach its previous level — it can’t do both at the same time because they’re the opposite. You don’t need to tell Metro it should get out of 30% overtime as soon as it can; it already knows that. The fare recovery ratio (the portion of operational costs covered by fares, 20-30% in the 2010s, less now) is low because… the county council voted to set it at that level. Another commentator has been predicting financial doom since 2022 and it still hasn’t happened. When it does, Metro and the county will tell us. All the reductions since then have been because of the driver shortage and maintainer/parts shortage, not because Metro doesn’t have enough money to pay expenses.
“It might be possible to wave off the 60% ridership recovery of Metro as having minimal impact on their finances.”
If Metro is running 80% of the network for 60% of the riders, the imbalance is only 20%. And that’s relative to the previous expense/rider level, not to some magic perfect ratio that every percent below is catastrophic. We don’t know what the catastrophic minimum is, since we’re not Metro accountants and don’t know everything about the agency.
It might be possible to wave off the 60% ridership recovery of Metro as having minimal impact on their finances. After all, Metro never really had very good farebox recovery anyhow. So losing 40% of your low farebox recovery might be survivable.
Right, unlike ST which depends a lot more on higher farebox recovery (which is way down). Again I don’t see you calling for any cuts to ST service.
But 30% OT? That is a big number. That really isn’t sustainable long term. Metro is going to have to get that under control. Fast.
They obviously know that, which is why they are trying to ramp up hiring.
The easiest way to cut OT is to cut routes or to cut frequency. Basically right size the agency. It’s what the other agencies have done. I don’t think Metro will do that, but we will see.
But again, that leads to the ridership-service spiral. You don’t seem to get that. Allow me to explain. Ridership is low, so the agency reduces service. Buses that run every fifteen minutes run every half hour. But riders don’t like that, and give up on the bus. So now ridership goes down even more, which means the agency has even less money. This keeps spiraling downward. It is less likely to happen with an agency like Metro (since fares make up a relatively small amount of the cost) but it is common.
Even without that you miss the point. The system is worse. Much worse. It is one thing if agencies are forced to make cuts and the system is worse, but they should do everything in their power to keep that from happening, and that includes running overtime.
But hey, who really cares?
Lots of people do, but apparently you don’t. This makes your intentions really clear. You don’t care about Metro, yet you constantly talk sh** about the agency. What is that about? Did Metro somehow dishonor you? Maybe you should challenge Metro to a duel and save us all this vitriol.
So far the really big transit news this year has been Swift Orange and the opening of the ELSL. The big news for the rest of the year will be the opening of LLE and the CT restructures to eliminate expresses to Seattle and to extend Swift Blue to the 185th St Station. Whatever will happen at Metro will have no impact on any of this.
What nonsense. First of all Metro buses will be restructured with Lynnwood Link as well. But are you really claiming that the opening of RapidRide G is less important than Swift Orange or a Swift Blue extension? Why? The G is arguably our first and only true BRT line in the state. For the first time we will run buses in the middle of the street. It will run every six minutes in the middle of the day. It will likely carry way more riders than the Orange Line and the extension of the Blue Line combined.
Oh, and it isn’t like there hasn’t been Metro related news this year. The extension of the Third Avenue transit mall downtown (https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2024/03/27/3rd-ave-projects-downtown-seattle-travel/#transit-corridor) is not big news, but it is bigger than Swift Orange. A lot more riders will be effected, either directly (by avoiding congestion while waiting for the bus) or indirectly (with more consistent service). Oh, and this is another way to reduce service costs: avoid congestion. In contrast Swift Orange is just an ordinary bus in the grand scheme of things. It isn’t particular fast or frequent. It probably would have been just as effective (and cheaper) to restructure the buses as a way to increase service along the key corridors. Clearly they are trying to milk the federal dollars by calling it “BRT”. More to the point the Orange Line is not as big a deal as the RapidRide H, and I sure as hell don’t remember you talking about the opening of the RapidRide H as being big news.
You are consistent in only one way: your negative attitude towards Metro. Metro could cure cancer and you would have something nasty to say about the agency.
@Mike Orr,
“ If Metro is running 80% of the network for 60% of the riders, the imbalance is only 20%”
Ah, no. That is incorrect math.
That is like saying that the difference between paying 15% and 30% on your income taxes is only 15%, so who cares? Right? While in actuality a 30% tax represents a doubling of the tax, or a 100% increase.
Likewise, the difference between 60% and 80% is not 20%. Looked at correctly the service levels are actually 33% higher than they need to be. Or, conversely, the service levels are only generating 75% of the ridership levels they should be.
But hey, Metro could chug along just fine generating 60% of pre-COVID ridership levels while spending 100% of pre-COVID budget levels. If that is how the region wants to spend its money. And if we assume that the 30% OT levels, the reduced farebox revenue, and the shift to more social equity based routes have zero budgetary impact (which is of course nonsense).
And, yes, Metro could make the 30% OT levels go away by simply hiring more employees. But Metro hasn’t been able to do that so far. And not for lack of trying.
“the service levels are actually 33% higher than they need to be. Or, conversely, the service levels are only generating 75% of the ridership levels they should be.”
Why are you taking the previous service level as gospel? You’re not a transit analyst who can authoritively say what the optimal level is. The previous level is just the previous level.
Looked at correctly the service levels are actually 33% higher than they need to be. Or, conversely, the service levels are only generating 75% of the ridership levels they should be.
First of all, you don’t seem to grasp the idea of transit service. You are basically equating it with a commodity, like donuts. If it was like making donuts then sure, you base your labor on how many donuts people are eating. But transit isn’t like that.
Jarrett Walker has written two books that explore this concept quite well. He is extremely well educated when it comes to transit and yet his books are easy for people who know nothing about transit to read. I suggest you read them. You can also find many of these ideas on his blog. For now let me give you an example:
Imagine a bus runs every half hour. Now they double the frequency of the bus, so that it runs every fifteen minutes. For the sake of argument, assume that ridership doesn’t increase. Did the service get better? Yes! It got a lot better. The existing riders got a much better ride. The cost doubled, but riders are much better off. The same thing works in reverse. If you cut service, then riders would be much better off.
I’ll use a real world example. Ridership on ST Express is down about 50%. Using your logic we should cut service in half. OK, that means that buses that run from Tacoma to Seattle or the airport should run every hour. The 550 (from Downtown to Bellevue) and 522 (from Bothell to Roosevelt) should run every half hour. Is that really what you want?
But let’s continue this idea further. We know, for a fact, that frequency influences ridership. There are numerous studies (and Walker cites them in his book). So if you increase frequency then ridership will go up. If you decrease frequency than ridership will go down. So that means that our example we should expect to see ridership go down, which seems quite reasonable to me. If I’m heading to Bellevue and the bus runs every 15 minutes that is a good option (for me, anyway). But if it runs every half hour I’m just going to drive. Same sort of thing applies to all of those other trips.
So after making these cuts we still wouldn’t have the ridership/service level you consider to be ideal. This means we would have to make further cuts. In fact, no matter how much we cut, we may never get to the ratio you think we should. You picked an arbitrary service/ridership level that may very well be completely out of our reach.
We can see that with your beloved Link. Ridership south of Capitol Hill is way down. Should we reduce the number of trains going to SeaTac? Also consider that fairly soon the two lines will provide lots of service along the area that gets the most riders per service hour (downtown to Northgate). They will run every five minutes (midday) which is way more than they ran before. Should we run the trains from Bellevue and SeaTac every 15 minutes, since even 7.5 minutes is a big improvement?
Transit agencies aren’t exempt from budget realities despite being heavily subsidized. Frequency and coverage cost money and the pie is fixed. Metro reduces frequency during times it expects lower ridership like weekends and late at night, and Metro has been eliminating or reducing routes post pandemic that have lower ridership. It is tough work and no doubt disappointing to have to reduce service which naturally reduces ridership. I think in 2024 Metro has reached its “new normal” when it comes to ridership and must balance frequency and coverage and budgets.
Link is the anomaly because its frequency isn’t ridership dependent. The increase in frequency after East Link opens is well beyond capacity needs. This is ironic because Link has by far the highest farebox recovery assumptions, 40%, when today farebox recovery is closer to 20% and the upcoming suburban routes are certain to have lower farebox recovery than existing Link. Link too has reached its new normal, and declining Metro feeder service won’t help Link.
The real issue isn’t what steps or further steps should Metro take to balance budgets within its 20% farebox recovery goal, the issue is the upcoming shortfall in operations funding ST will also experience it pretends doesn’t exist.
This was Rogoff’s main warning in his last presentation to the Board. Since that June 2021 presentation ST has disclosed it underestimated future operations costs by $1.2 billion, and here in 2024 farebox recovery hasn’t budged from 20% while estimated future operations costs have ballooned. Something has to give. For Link that is frequency although most rail systems opt for deferring maintenance and replacement because its route and coverage are fixed.
ST should be studying Metro (or MTA or BART) because ST will face the same tough choices.
Metro reduces frequency during times it expects lower ridership like weekends and late at night, and Metro has been eliminating or reducing routes post pandemic that have lower ridership.
Like most transit agencies, Metro has always tried to strike a balance between ridership and coverage. At the same time they had certain routes that were extremely crowded during peak. These routes are no longer so crowded, so they were the first to be cut. This probably hurt ridership, but not that much because the relationship between ridership and frequency is not linear. (A bus every three minutes isn’t much better than every five minutes, but a bus every ten is much better than a bus every twenty.) Likewise, they used to run express routes that both relieved crowding and provided those riders a faster trip. Again, those were eliminated early. These weren’t exactly coverage, nor were they terrible from a ridership standpoint, but it was assumed that the riders would be OK taking a normal (slow) bus. Again, some ridership loss probably occurred (there is a speed/ridership relationship) but probably not a lot.
After that the cuts got tougher. Some coverage routes have been cut, but some high-frequency high-ridership routes have been cut as well. It appears to me that is the same basic balance of ridership versus coverage, just with less service.
I would say the worst problem facing Metro is its planning. The routes are inefficient and indirect. Of course having a lot more money would help, but the problem is largely independent of money. The only time it is an issues is when you have very little money. The type of network folks have been talking about for years (https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/) would be difficult without adequate funding. A grid doesn’t work very well if buses are really infrequent. I don’t see that happening though — at least not in Seattle (where the case for a grid is strongest). In contrast if funding increases then a grid really shines. Buses that run every ten minutes are great, but buses that run every five are even better. There is really no good reason for our network being so poor.
Money is the second biggest worry and ridership is below that. As you noted, Metro doesn’t get a lot of money from fares (and ridership is not that far below what it was before the pandemic). The only really bad thing about low ridership is that makes things more difficult from a political standpoint. Ignorant politicians and can argue that since fewer people are riding transit there should be less of it. But again, I don’t see that as being a major problem in Seattle. I don’t think the size of the next transit improvement package will be influenced that much by the fact that ridership is down.
I agree, ST is a different beast and has tougher long-term problems.
It’s a political issue what service level to offer and how to allocate the budget. The county council directed Metro to keep up frequency in 2020 and 2022 even with lower ridership/fare revenue. Some cuts and suspensions were made, and some Seattle service went away when the city levy was lowered in 2020, but in general Metro is keeping off-peak frequency up.
In the 2008 recession, Metro stripped out everything else to keep the buses running. No more planners, office layoffs, etc. Metro may be doing a lite version of that now. So it’s not that Metro can’t afford the service; it’s that it’s economizing in other areas (I assume).
In the past Metro has cut service or deferred expansions due to lack of money. That happened in the 2014 cuts. Metro laid off drivers, then the next year the economy recovered and Metro had to scramble to hire them back. Seattle voted to tax itself for more service. Metro couldn’t rehire drivers that quickly, so it took another couple years to ramp up the expansions.
Since 2022 Metro has had a longer-term driver shortage, as have other transit agencies around the country, and restaurants and libraries, etc. All the reductions and suspensions since then have been due to the labor shortage, not lack of money. So Metro can afford its current level of service. It may have reprioritized the budget, but in that case the proper question to ask is, “What are Metro’s budget priorities? How have they changed since 2019? Should certain items be raised/lowered relative to each other?” For that you’d have to ask Metro’s PR/accountants/general manager and the county council. We don’t need to make individual assertions in a vacuum, saying cost/rider must remain the same as 2019, and that values can’t change. The values that have changed are: keep up all-day frequency, prioritize equity higher, and fill underservice gaps in equity-emphasis areas.
“the worst problem facing Metro is its planning.”
Yes. Metro made great strides in planning and aggressive restructures in 2010-2019, but since then it has backtracked. RossB and I disagree on how bad the RapidRide G restructure is, but it’s noticeable that none of Metro’s long-term concepts are in it: moving the 2 to Pine-12th-Union, changing the 8 to Denny-Madison to replace the 11, replacing the 49 with a Broadway north-south route (UDistrict-Beacon Hill, or extending the 60 to the UDistrict), or rerouting the 106 to Boren Ave and SLU. Why not even one of them? Why won’t Metro say why it didn’t, and what the threshold is for doing them in the future?