20/40/40 Under Fire

Photo by Oran
Photo by Oran

[Update: Aubrey Cohen at the P-I takes this post and runs with it, by collecting some quotes from some of the important players.]

The service allocation rule known as 20/40/40 is a directive from the King County Council that requires new Metro service hours in the proportions 20%/40%/40%. That is, 20% to the West area (Seattle, Shoreline, etc.), 40% to the East area, and 40% to South King County.  It is intended to gradually remedy the traditional allocation to Seattle well in excess of its share of the County’s population, and bring service to areas that currently have little or no transit access.

Critics have long contended that this reduces Metro’s cost efficiency and denies relief for overloaded routes in dense, transit-dependent areas.  As we discovered in February, Metro policy dictates that cuts be made in proportion to the current service levels (approximately 60/20/20).  This means that cuts would heavily impact Seattle, but restored service would be directed to the suburbs.  $100m in operating cuts would therefore require a $300m budget increase to fully restore the situation in Seattle.

This asymmetry, combined with the strong likelihood of some service cuts, has given new energy to the 20/40/40 opponents.  Last week, the P-I reported that  King County Executive candidate and State Sen. Fred Jarrett, perhaps trying to reach beyond his Eastside base, came out against 20/40/40 as a “failed model.”

On nearly the same day, Mayor Nickels’ office sent a letter to Interim County Executive Kurt Triplett (pdf) insisting that the strictly geographic criteria be replaced with four metrics: Continue reading “20/40/40 Under Fire”

News Round Up: 46 Days

Hollywood Subway 1946
Hollywood Subway, 1946 photo by Army Arch

In 1946, the first passenger train public address system was unveiled in a New York City subway car. Link’s in-car public-address system has technology that will automatically adjust volume to take into account street noise. Also in 1946, Toronto voters approved a subway system by a nearly ten-to-one vote.

Guest Post Series: In 1996, A Second Chance for Light Rail

by GREG NICKELS, Mayor of Seattle and Chair of the Sound Transit Board
rta01Following the defeat of the March 14, 1995 RTA proposition, things looked bleak for mass transit in Metro Seattle. Despite a relatively close outcome, the votes were not evenly distributed – Seattle, Lake Forest Park and Mercer Island were the only jurisdictions that passed the measure – the rest of King County and both Pierce and Snohomish Counties voted no. In Everett, Light Rail was slightly less popular than Prohibition! There was no requirement that the plan pass in each separate county (just the overall district), but politically it was necessary to show broad support, not just from a Seattle dominated electorate.

Given the math, how could a majority of the RTA Board be convinced to put the measure on the ballot? To make matters worse, the RTA, which had been given revenue from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax for planning, no longer had any income and no legislative support for additional dollars in Olympia. Could the agency even survive until the measure was resubmitted?

Critics often bemoan the absence of leadership in our civic affairs, but I would argue that our regional leaders responded to the defeat of the first RTA plan with creativity and courage. I was approached after the election by two respected political professionals: John Engber and Don McDonough. They quickly convinced me (and ultimately the rest of the Board) that the key to success was to place a revised plan on the Presidential ballot in 1996. The reason? Younger voters would be a much larger proportion of the electorate. Younger voters believe they will be around for a while and therefore are much more likely to vote for a transit plan that may take years to complete (the defeated RTA plan took twenty years to build out).

The problem with November of 1996 was the twenty-month wait. How could an agency with no assets and no revenue survive? And what would it do in the interim?

rta02It began with a listening tour, asking voters why they had rejected the plan. Was it opposition to the entire concept or to certain aspects of the specific plan they rejected? The Board laid off most of the staff, keeping just 22 folks to reduce expenses to a bare minimum. Operating funds were borrowed from King County. The original Executive Director, Tom Matoff, resigned to give the Board a clean slate moving forward (Tom was a light rail guy with little interest in express bus or HOV access). Planning director Bob White (one of the original Metro staff) replaced Matoff.

Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel took over as the Board Chair despite the terrible showing the proposition had in his county. Work soon focused on some basic concepts – a smaller initial phase (somewhat ironic given that this was the big reason for Everett’s opposition) with a shorter timeframe and more investments in express bus service and HOV access projects. This was an attempt to respond to concerns raised in our listening tour. Among the issues we heard were accountability for such a huge program from an agency with no track record and that there was nothing in the plan for many parts of the RTA district for many years (if ever).

In the end the phase one plan the Board put on the ballot, now called Sound Move, was reduced from $6.7 billion to $3.9 billion (1996 dollars) and Light Rail scaled back to a line from the UW to Sea-Tac (with a door open for Northgate if additional funds were secured). Added were park and ride lots, access ramps to HOV lanes and a concept called “sub-area equity”, the concept that funds should return to the county or sub-region in rough proportion to what they had paid. The time frame for completing phase one was pegged at 10 years. The election was set for November 5, 1996.

The campaign again was hard fought, but this time the proponents were less defensive. We focused more on grass roots support and less from “opinion leaders”. It worked, voters in all three counties approved the plan, 58.8% in King County, 54.4% in Snohomish and even Pierce voters gave a 50.1% nod to the yes side.

At last it looked like smooth sailing for a Metro Seattle mass transit system!

Sound Transit: Slower Bus Rollout, More Riders

The Prop. 1 package has suffered its first casualty as a result of the recession.  Thanks to lower sales tax collections, and a three-month delay in implementing the tax in the first place, there will not be 100,000 new service hours in 2009; instead, there will be 24,000 this year with the rest phased in by February 2011.  If you prefer to phrase it another way, there will be 48,000 additional service hours after the tax has been in effect for one year.

On May 26, the Sound Transit board  chose this staff option over an alternative that took until September 2011.  The difference in the slower plan was that ST would have delayed a September 2009 service increase.  A massive February 2010 service change occurred in either plan, but follow-on improvements would have slid back about 6 months.

A clear yet exhaustive comparison of the current plan and the rejected one is here (pdf).  An even more detailed staff report (pdf) is available as well.  The deferred plan was estimated to save about $10m.

UPDATE (2 Jun): The various Sound Transit 2 plan documents are careful to say “Express Bus improvements beginning in 2009.”  (emphasis mine).  The YES statement, in the King County Voter’s Pamphlet, suggests “100,000 hours of additional service in 2009.”  It may very well be that completion in 2009 was never feasible and it’s simply an error by the authors of the YES statement.

**********

ST also released its quarterly ridership report (pdf) last week.  Ridership rose in spite of the economy.  Although that’s partially due to increased service, bus boardings per revenue hour increased.  Although ridership is up, the productivity metrics for Sounder actually deteriorated because of sparsely utilized reverse-peak trips.  These cost virtually nothing to provide, because the train has to get back to Tacoma to do another run anyway.

I’m not really sure why ST doesn’t also track productivity per operating hour as well as revenue hour, since that would correct these kind of metric-related problems.

Now This is a System Map

Greater Tokyo Railway Network
Map by flickr user Kzaral

This is a fairly complete – to my knowledge – map of the passenger rail network in Tokyo and its suburbs.
Here is pdf map of made by someone else that includes Tokyo and its suburbs, but not the its suburbs’ suburbs. I’ve been looking for a map like this for a long time, since there are more than a dozen train operators in the Tokyo area, and most system maps in Tokyo draw either just the center city subway network or just the map of a specific private rail operator’s network. There are several hundred stations on the map, and it shows the passenger rail network of an area about 1/3 bigger than King County (8,500 km² including water) where about 35 million people live (that’s about 20 times the population of King County). No wonder Tokyo gets away with a small highway system.

52 Days

Jim Ellis and Ben Schiendelman

In 1952, a “Home Rule” King County Charter (the County Charter is the equivalent of the county constitution) was on the ballot. The King County Government was still using the original territorial charter established in 1852, and some leaders wanted a modern charter that reflected the realities of the 1950s: a large county with a mostly-urban population. The charter included a seven-member non-partisan county council and a non-partisan county executive, rather than the three county commissioners at the time. On top of the county council provisions, the idea of building a modern rapid transit system was one of the major motivations, along with a parks agency, a water treatment agency and a planning agency.

Jim Ellis (pictured) led the charter-writing effort, so it’s no surprise it included a mass transit plan. Ellis has now fought for transit in our region for more than fifty five years. More on Ellis here, here and here. I rode Link with him last year, and his vision for our region is finally becoming a reality: the 1952 Charter failed by a 2-1 margin, but since then nearly every other provision in the charter has passed. In 1958, a county wastewater treatment agency was created. In 1968, the county adopted a council and executive system, and the positions were made non-partisan last year. In 1973, Metro Transit was created to provide county buses. King County Parks were created in 1974. In 1994 Sound Transit was created to provide regional mass (and rapid) transit, and light rail opens in 52 days. If we had only listened to Ellis earlier we might be a lot better off today.

Another 52: Sound Transit is targeting 52% farebox recovery for Central Link.

Creative Ideas for Metro Funding

Broadway & Montgomery
Ad in a SF Muni bus stop, photo by dantc

King County Councilman Larry Phillips wants to tap into the “entrepreneurial energy” of King County to find creative ways to help with Metro’s massive funding gap. We’ve cover the funding gap a lot, for backround, here’s a story on the gap, here’s a story on one way to cover a portion of it, here’s a story about how scary it is for bus riders, here’s a story about Olympia’s help with closing part of it, and here’s a story about the Govenor’s veto of part of that help. Here’s Phillips:

“We must harness King County’s entrepreneurial spirit to find ways Metro can reduce costs and generate some cash to keep buses on the streets despite the decline in tax revenue,” said Phillips. “Metro has already tapped into some entrepreneurial efforts such as advertising in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and service partnerships with cities and businesses, but it’s time to dig deeper and expand those opportunities. For example, can we help pay for implementing RapidRide by allowing companies to buy sponsorships at new RapidRide stations?”

I like the RapidRide station sponsorship idea. We’ve been advocating more advertising in Metro stops for long, long time as a way to bring in revenue. Ads in covered Metro bus stops are practically a no-brainer. How about ads on transfers? I also think you could make a lot of money by opening kiosks for newsvendor/coffee cart folks inside the downtown Transit Tunnel.

Got any great ideas for Metro to make money? Leave them in the comments.

Metro Audit Finds $105m in Reserves; Gov Explains Veto

Hot on the heels of the Governor’s controversial veto of one of Metro’s potential funding sources, there’s word that early auditing of Metro has found that the King County transit agency has excess capital reserves that can help with its budget crisis. It’s in the P-I:

Just as it faces a $168-million budget gap for 2010 and 2011, King County Metro Transit has $105 million more than it needs in its fleet-replacement fund, auditors said Tuesday.

The agency’s fleet fund has about $200 million and is projected to hit $300 million by 2025, because it brings in more than is needed for new vehicles nearly every year, Larry Brubaker, a senior principal management auditor with the county Auditor’s Office, told the County Council’s Government Accountability and Oversight Committee. “It brings into question why you’d need to maintain a large fund balance.”

(…)

Brubaker cautioned that the extra money is a one-time windfall, and said council members might want to spend it a bit at a time over several years.

(…)

The fleet funding was part of an overall finding that current Metro policies are putting more money than needed toward capital expenses and, therefore, should rework the distribution of revenue between capital and operations.

With much of Metro’s fleet facing retirement soon, we’re likely going to have to re-invest in this fund in the future. In the near-term, though, I think most of us would rather see service cuts that are less deep than worry about the fund’s balance sheet since no matter how you dice things Metro’s long-term outlook is unsustainable. However, there is nearly a universal tendency among transit agencies to sacrifice their capital goals for their operating ones, so that lost quoted paragraph in particular surprises us. We look forward to the full audit in September.

Also contained in the P-I article is the Governor’s explanation for her veto, after the jump…

Continue reading “Metro Audit Finds $105m in Reserves; Gov Explains Veto”

Governor Plans Partial Veto of SB 5433

This bill, which we’ve mentioned a few times in the past, would allow two things very important to funding transit: The first, not under fire here, is the provision to allow King County Council to increase the ferry district property tax to help fund Metro.

I’ve just gotten word, however, that the governor plans to veto the provision allowing new local car tab fees (up to $20) to help fund transit. This could be used to help any transit agency in the state, and as it requires a public vote to approve I don’t really see how this is anything but Olympia dictating to local governments, yet again.

Can’t we get any progressives around here?