Hello all--

I found this little gem on metrokc's webpage about I-695. For reasons I'll detail below, I find it extremely misleading.

"Service hours - Between 800,000 and 1.3 million hours of bus service could be eliminated, depending on specific service program choices and changes to the paratransit program and fares. That represents about 30 percent of current service levels. On average, a 30 percent reduction in ridership would result in 25 million fewer annual riders, 83,000 fewer weekday riders and 23,000 fewer riders during each day? afternoon commute period. Some bus riders would carpool or not travel at all, but roadways in King County would have additional cars - an estimated 70,000 added cars per day and 20,000 more cars adding to congestion during the afternoon commute period."

The most obviously misleading statistic is the proposition equating a a 30% service reduction with a 30% reduction in ridership. This is laughable. Given reasonable mgmt, the *only* conceivable way this could possibly be true is if *every* bus carried (on average) the same number of passengers.

Even more insidious (because it's not as obvious) is that the statistics ignore the reality that a 33% reduction in service can be attained by reducing a route from 3Xhour to 2Xhour. On average, if the bus is less than 2/3 full, the bus system will still have the capacity needed to move its riders. In this case, I believe it very unlikely the the riders of the "cut" bus will return to their cars. It's probable they'd just change their commute start/end times by 10 minutes or so. FWIW: since this adaptation comes at a price (small IMO), I'd be curious to see research about the (in)elasticity of public transportation usage.

In general, I don't ascribe to "bad intentions" what I can to incompetence. In the case, it seems they oughta be ashamed of themselves.

Rhetorical question: did the writer of this position paper assume most people don't think critically about the statistics they see?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 29, 1999

Answers

Actually, transit useage is very interesting. There is a population that is truly transit dependent. This is a relatively small (and declining) minority of people who are from no-car households as well as a population that for medical (seizure disorder, blindness, etc.) or legal reasons (underage, license suspended, uninsurable, etc.), are not permitted to drive. There is a small hardcore of individuals that will use transit for philosophical reasons (Jeff and BB), but for the REST of the people, their use is HIGHLY affected by frequency of service, hours of service, fare rates, number of transfers to destination, and whether or not express (as opposed to local) service is available. Now MetroKC transit has barely been hanging in there in per capita ridership for the last 10 years, that after losing market share before that. They've done this by massive subsidies (their farebox return is only about 50% of the average large urban metropolitan area transit), strong-arming company's to give away bus (and ferry) passes, and counting trips that they give away in the no fare zone. While I would think it unlikely that they would experience a 30% reduction, no one could say for sure. The auto is really a strong competitor. This does assume, however, that no internal economies are possible, which is naive. In fact, privatized transit systems get along fairly well with just modest subsidies, some even make money. And the other "fly in the ointment," is light rail. Typically, a bus system becomes less efficient after light rail for two reasons. The high density/high frequency route is usually where the light rail is built. When ridership figures don't live up to expectations on the light rail (and they rarely do) they tend to sub-optimize the rest of the transit system to make the buses feeders of light rail. This decreases the bus efficiency. Bottom line: No way to know until we try.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 29, 1999.

Craig writes:

"is a small hardcore of individuals that will use transit for philosophical reasons (Jeff and BB)"

Come on now Craig, play nice. I didn't ride the bus into Seattle for ideological reasons; I rode it because parking in downtown Seattle is insanely expensive and the traffic on the floating bridges is annoying as hell. It makes more sense to spend four bucks round trip and park for free on the eastside than it does to spend 15 bucks to park downtown.

There wasn't that much of a time difference either, seeing how the bridges are always backed up. It wasn't ideology; it simply saved me time, aggrivation, and money.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

The $4 you paid, BB, was the visible cost. Since only about 15% of the cost is paid for by fares, you didn't see the OTHER $22. And, as I have said before, I use transit and the ferries too. The MARGINAL COST to me is only the fare. But do I believe that it is reasonable to pay $26 for that trip; No. And we are paying $26 for that trip. And everyone who rides transit and the ferries is being HIGHLY subsidized by those who do not. I simply don't think it is good government policy to subsidize the majority of people who don't require transit. But, to correct the record, I will remove you from the list of people who use transit for philosophical reasons and place you on the list of people who use transit because they can exploit their fellow taxpayers (don't take offense, that's the list I'm on). Regrettably, that may leave Jeff on the philospohical list all by himself. Hope he doesn't get lonesome.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Craig-

Go ahead and add me to the list. The bus saves me time, aggravation, and money. And, (once again using craig-logic), this makes me an "exploitee of my fellow tax-payers" or a "welfare recipient". Do you have any idea how much money subsidizes roads and highways? What does that make you? What does that make us all?....Filthy little welfare-teat-sucking bastards, thats what.

-- Wild Bill (colt45@yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

"Do you have any idea how much money subsidizes roads and highways? " Yes, very little really. If you look at some of the convoluted arguments used to allege that these aren't paid predominately by users, they are laughable. A recent USDOT article said much the same thing. I'd recommend you read it.

As far as adding you to the list, Deranged William, which list? The transit dependent, the Exploiters or the True Believers?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Deranged William-

Heres the article I referenced:

http://www.bts.gov/programs/jts/murphy.pdf

A Review of the Literature on the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States JAMES J. MURPHY Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis MARK A. DELUCCHI Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis

Its on the USDOT site, and explores in EXCRUCIATING detail all of the inconsistencies in the various alleged social costs and subsidization of the automobile.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Craig:

And again I remind you: 695 is not a referrendum on transit. It changes no priorities or programs. Your complaints about transit, or art, or any other program you can name, are not addressed in this initiative. If that is what you want to do, 695 does not do it for you.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.

To those who think I-695 will have no effect on transit service in King County: There is no way that King County's transit operating budget can absorb a hit like this. An alternative transit budget is being put together that would cut about 450,000 annual hours of service in 2000 and a similar amount in 2001. Even if the state legislature were to authorize alternative sources of revenue to make up this amount, the earliest something could appear on a ballot would be November. The year 2000 reductions will be "done deals", since the cuts would have to be made in February, June, and September, the regular service change dates. These reductions essentially undo four years of transit improvements implemented under the County's Six-Year Transit Development Plan (made with extensive public input and participation; I know, I was part of this), and cut the system back to a level operated in the early 1980's. Proponents of this statewide initiative will have to bear some responsibility for the consequences, since votes of people who live outside the central Puget Sound area are canceling out the votes of those who live here who have supported transit and will be directly affected by the reductions to come. I just see chaos, service reductions, and adverse impacts on people I know. Instead of building on the service improvements of the last four years, we're going to be spending a lot of energy just trying to put the pieces back together over the next few years.

-- Jack Lattemann (73052.1202@compuserve.com), October 04, 1999.

"Proponents of this statewide initiative will have to bear some responsibility for the consequences, since votes of people who live outside the central Puget Sound area are canceling out the votes of those who live here who have supported transit and will be directly affected by the reductions to come" Sounds remarkably similar to the DOT's gerrymandering of the Tacoma Narrows toll bridge issue. 80% "no" vote in Gig Harbor and surrounding areas, but the state went to an eight county region of people who have seen pictures of the bridge once or twice but would rarely if ever drive on it to get a "yes" vote. What's sauce for the goose, as the saying goes......

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 04, 1999.

"And again I remind you: 695 is not a referrendum on transit. It changes no priorities or programs. Your complaints about transit, or art, or any other program you can name, are not addressed in this initiative. If that is what you want to do, 695 does not do it for you. " Oh but it does, d. It forces the politicians and bureaucrats to PRIORITIZE programs, and not fund something. In the absence of any market forces to discipline them, they will otherwise take the line of least resistance (raise taxes) rather than cut back programs that are not supported by a majotity of people. If a majority support transit or art, they should have no problem getting additional money from the taxpayers. If a majority don't support these programs, then they shouldn't have the money. We're talking politicians and bureaucrats here, not aristocracy. And the "divine right of kings" went out of business with the Magna Carta.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.

Craig--"It forces the politicians and bureaucrats to PRIORITIZE programs, and not fund something. In the absence of any market forces to discipline them, they will otherwise take the line of least resistance (raise taxes) rather than cut back programs that are not supported by a majotity of people."

In a nutshell, these two sentences sum up my support for I-695.

I admit I-695 is not a perfect initiative, but to paraphrase Warren Buffett "it's usually better to be approximately right than exactly wrong."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 04, 1999.