How can the reduced bus service on February 7th transport the same number of riders -- do the math. OR: State takes Commuters Hostage

Welcome to the New Millennium  the 21st century!

As February 7th rapidly approaches there is mounting frustration amongst the daily commuters who keep Seattle in trade and commerce. Once this date arrives the commuters from outlying areas (who live there because of economic reasons)will be plunged back in time to 1989  the 20th century! For on this date a great many buses will be cancelled leaving the commuting public stranded, except for the fact that an estimated 20,000 additional cars will be taking the routes into Seattle to contribute to the already burgeoning traffic that daily snarls access into the city. In addition as from January 1st our fares increased 50%. The State has been advocating the rapid transit system but the looming scenario seems like traffic gridlock.

I strongly believe that our State is taking their own commuters hostage. It is for economic reasons that the commuter population uses the bus system. It seems to me that the problems Seattle experienced during our famous WTO gridlock will become a daily occurrence. The commuter stands to lose whichever way you view the prospect.

It is time that our elected representatives do their math again and provide a service, not only to the commuter but also to the business community of Seattle.

I would like to have faith that our public transport system does not hurtle backwards to 1989 but it looks likely today!

Its time we looked at the rapid bullet trains of France and Japan and get them installed here from the borders in the north and south! Definitely not more roads.

-- Sandra Greene (sandra.greene@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 2000

Answers

" Its time we looked at the rapid bullet trains of France and Japan and get them installed here from the borders in the north and south! Definitely not more roads." Gee Sandra, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but transit (yes, even the bullet trains) are continuing to lose market share even in Japan and France. Why? Because people prefer the automobile.

But you have pointed out one of two problems. Both ferries and transit have been subsidized to a truly ridiculous extent by the taxpayers. In the case of MetroKC transit, farebox revenue (user fees) has only covered 20-21% of operating costs (versus 40% for the average transit authority in the US) and other transit systems are even more highly subsidized. Farebox revenue in Bellingham-Whatcom county only covered 5-6% of operating expenses. And user fees cover NO capital expenses.

Now what made this ridiculous is that 95% of the people rarely if ever use transit. So this level of subsidy was paid for by the many, to benefit a few. That
fs great leverage while you get away with it, but it sets up a terribly adversely leveraged situation when the 19 out of 20 people who rarely if ever use transit decide they no longer want to subsidize you. For you have been suckered into making job and housing decisions on the assumption that 19 out of 20 people are willing to pay in perpetuity for something that is extremely expensive (Metro is the largest single line-item in the King County budget, a third of a Billion annually, before 695) and scarcely benefits them at all.

I am sorry to tell you, but you placed a sucker bet. Most of your fellow citizens in the Puget Sound region are NOT transit users and will not be particularly interested in bailing you out. As for the 20,000 extra people, you may be right. There may be an extra 2% of cars on the road. If so, that means that we
fll have today about the traffic that we would have otherwise had in June. You see, in the grand scheme of things, transit just plain carries a trivial number of people, less than 5% of commuters, less than 2% of total passenger miles. And even were you to get a small majority of Puget Sound residents willing to continue to subsidize you, outside the Puget Sound region most people don
ft see the necessity to take care of Seattle
fs problem. Seattle (and King County) turned their backs on keeping up with their growth by building roads commensurate with their growth, largely dumping this money into transit. If congestion gets sufficiently bad, you can either vote to tax yourselves to build adequate roads, watch prosperity go elsewhere, or continue to stuff YOUR OWN money down the transit rathole. Like most people in the state, I don
ft want MY representatives bailing out your oversubsidized system.

But good luck to you in any event. Sorry you let your political leadership snooker you. But as far as most of us are

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 08, 2000.

Craig your commentary is always right on the nose. But why does your computer make little squares mixed in with the letters?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 08, 2000.

maddjak,

Twice, in two days, Craig has made a comment about flying to California or Hawaii in his posts. Subconciously? I think he and his computer are suffering from seasonal affective disorder and want to vacation in a warm sunny climate.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 08, 2000.

"Craig your commentary is always right on the nose. But why does your computer make little squares mixed in with the letters?"

Heck- I don't even understand why it truncates my messages at the end. I think the squares may be due to a translation p[roblem in going from one font on my word processor to a different one on my browser. I'll try to put them in the same font, and see if that doesn't help.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 08, 2000.

Keep in mind that Metro was an independant local government until relatively recently, with several major responsibilities. Look at each job as if it were in a seperate "department" of the government, as in other areas.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 09, 2000.