What does it cost to get one commuter off the road with transit? Best case scenario, where the individual can walk directly from home to the departure transit station, take a direct line to his/her destination transit station, and walk to his/her job, the individual will use transit for two trips a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year. This totals 500 transit trips, and is the MINIMUM that it will take to replace one commuter with one transit rider. If they have to take transfers (either route transfers or intermodal transfers), if you have to furnish a park n ride, if ANYTHING is less than ideal, it can only get worse. So what's the bare minimum to put a commuter on transit? If you look at Metro in 1998 (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/0001/$File/P0001.PDF) (last year that statistics are available), 64.4 million trips resulted in operating expenses of $218 million and a capital expense of $38 million, or about $3.98 per trip. The transit rider actually paid for some of that through fares (user fees) so that's not really fair. Subtracting the farebox revenue, the total expenses are reduced to a mere $223 million, giving a per trip cost of $3.46. Multiply that times 500, and you see that it took public subsidies of $1,730 to take one commuter off the freeways for the year. Of course, this is for the average BEST CASE scenario in 1998. Since all of the high density areas have already been used up, any additional commuters will cost considerably more than that. Once you get out of the CBD, additional routes get muchmore expensive. Actually, the above numbers are for trips that have a mean distance of 6 and a quarter miles ($.54 per mile in operating expenses, or $.64 per mile total cost in 1998). So we are paying this much money to avoid this individual driving 12.5 miles per day, a daily subsidy of about $7.

That's with the cheapest form of transit, a bus, under ideal conditions. And that assumes that the individual lives no more than six and a quarter miles from his/her work. It only gets worse from there. Anybody who believes that transit will solve the Puget Sound congestion problem at an affordable price, can't do long division.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 15, 2000

Answers

But Craig, It's free money!! We don't have to spend anything. The government spends it all just like in Patricks commentary. Here's a free $100.00. Don't you want to spend it on Rancid Transit???

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 15, 2000.

This is all really lousy logic. The numbers you use for a per trip cost are directly dependant on the number of people riding the bus. For a bus that is 50% full, the trip cost is significantly larger than the trip cost on a bus that is 75% full. As your numbers have shown in the past, that 50% of capacity rate is actually a lot higher than the average capacity rate of a Metro bus. So the addition of even a few passengers to these routes will have a SIGNIFICANT impact on the per trip cost.

Nice try.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 15, 2000.

"This is all really lousy logic. The numbers you use for a per trip cost are directly dependant on the number of people riding the bus. ..... As your numbers have shown in the past, that 50% of capacity rate is actually a lot higher than the average capacity rate of a Metro bus.......Nice try." Patrick- These are the ACTUAL figures for Metro. These are the actual figures for the county with the greatest population density in the state. These are the figures for the BEST CASE of the county with the greatest population density in the state.

Theoretical capacity doesn't mean much. If it did, transit would have a capacity problem, not a demand problem. These figures reflect the fact that demand for transit is so low that you REQUIRE a $7 a day public subsidy to induce your PRESENT transit riders to ride the bus for twelve and a half miles a day.

If you don't COMPREHEND that, take a beginning economics course.

Showing your ignorance and then following up with your arrogance is certainly vintage Patrick. We've seen it from you often enough. But it does nothing for your credibility. And if you consider it a cutting remark that will either devastate me or win you converts, add self-delusion to your already rather lengthy list of faults.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 15, 2000.

Craigster:

FWIW Holidays, 10 days. Vacations, 10 days to 20 days, 15 or so average. Business trips, sick leave, training and other, 5 days to 30 or more. The usual estimate for the number of actual working weeks is in the range of 42 to 45.

Peak commute time runs are constructively 50% empty (or full). Some transit systems don't even pretend to carry passengers while getting to the beginning (morning) or end (evening) of their route for the peak commute times.

The issue is: We expect drivers to pay the full cost of providing roads, but expect transit passengers to pay less than half the incremental operating costs of sending the bus over the roads paid for by the drivers, and nothing toward the capital costs of providing the bus. Is this good public policy? What division of costs would be good public policy? Could transit stand on its own if we all gave up the car and went to public transit? Or is our present public policy a slippery slope to total insolvancy?

Terry

-- Terry Jackson (Terryj@olypen.com), January 16, 2000.

"FWIW Holidays, 10 days. Vacations, 10 days to 20 days, 15 or so average. Business trips, sick leave, training and other, 5 days to 30 or more. The usual estimate for the number of actual working weeks is in the range of 42 to 45." So decrease the number by 10% per year if that helps you. But when you do that, you also decrease the number of auto commutes that you would be offsetting, so this basically makes both auto and transit commuting cheaper, the ratio remains the same.

"Peak commute time runs are constructively 50% empty (or full). Some transit systems don't even pretend to carry passengers while getting to the beginning (morning) or end (evening) of their route for the peak commute times." And only the rare route that both starts and ends at the bus barn doesn't have additional "deadhead" time at the start and end of the service day.

"The issue is: We expect drivers to pay the full cost of providing roads," AND 83% of the cost of transit.

"but expect transit passengers to pay less than half the incremental operating costs of sending the bus over the roads paid for by the drivers," Statewide, the average is 17%.

"and nothing toward the capital costs of providing the bus." Which AGAIN is provided by the non-transit user.

"Is this good public policy?" Only if it is your religion.

"What division of costs would be good public policy?" 100% support for the transit dependent, everybody else pays theirown way.

"Could transit stand on its own if we all gave up the car and went to public transit?" No. It serves the 85% of the state population who have access to it inadequately now. That's why its market share of passenger miles is 2%. You would have to dramatically increase subsidies to merely double its useage. You are talking about a fifty fold increase. King County alone is costing you one-third of a billion a year, to provide less than one transit ride a week per resident. The average person makes about five unlinked trips PER DAY. Even if you could increase the service without changing unit cost (and you couldn't, the most densely populated areas are already pretty well served), you would be talking about over $10 billion per year, every year, just for King County.

"Or is our present public policy a slippery slope to total insolvancy?" You have a classic negative feedback loop here. Money to run the system is derived from people who use a different competing system. If you had a substantial mode change, you'd shift people currently paying into the sytem to being recipients of the system. That's an economic death spiral. Current subsidies are possible ONLY because there are relatively few (subsidized) users compared to (non-subsidized) taxpayers.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 16, 2000.

Interesting analysis, although I think you might have understated farebox revenue. Per the link you provided, it was 67 million, bringing total expenses down to about 189 million. Since you're handy with figures, here's a challenge: how much do transit users pay to keep commuters on the road?

-- bdmichel (bdmichel@home.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichael,

Please explain how operating expenses of $296,488,917 minus fare revenues earned of $67,769,721 equals total expenses of 189 million?

Craig, please correct me if I am wrong, but I show operating expenses NOT covered by revenues earned, to be $228,719,196. Is my calculator broken? I have never been a Math wiz, but this looks fairly simple. Total expenses would not be reduced by fare recovery anyway. Only the amount of subsidy is reduced, correct? Total expenses are total expenses.

Does the subsidy rate not, in fact, get much worse when capital expenditures are added to operating expenses of $52,832,089?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

(218 million + 38 million) - 67 million = 189 million

-- bdmichel (bdmichel@home.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichael

"how much do transit users pay to keep commuters on the road?"

Which commuters? Commuters who ride Transit Busses? Commuters in SOV's? Commuters who carpool? Vanpool? Ride the Passenger Ferry? Auto Ferry? Walk or bike to work? Commuters who use park and ride lots? A number of above combinations? I think your question needs clarification, don't you?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichael,

I have the PDF document up at this very minute. Where do you get operating expenses of $218 million?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Hi. I think Craig, in his example, was referring specifically to bus operating expenses. It's in the upper right hand corner, under the "bus" column - operating expenses 217-something million.

-- bdmichel (bdmichel@home.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichael,

Are you talking about Busses or Transit?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichael,

Aha! Got it. My figures are for transit, not busses. At least my subtraction was not faulty! We'll have to get Craig to change the term from "Transit" to bus, if that is what he means.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichel--"here's a challenge: how much do transit users pay to keep commuters on the road?"

Ummm, given the difference in absolute numeric terms between Washington's transit users and commuters as well as the percentage subsidy for each group, I imagine you might want to ask another question.

Craig, after reading various pro-transit posts recently, I'm starting to agree with your labelling transit a new religion (see db. . .this forum actually can change opinions).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichael,

So you are using bus operating expenses, but a farebox recovery total for Transit? I can find no figure for farebox recovery on busses alone, did you? Craigs figures indicate that it would be $33 million, correct?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Brad, If you can believe it, I am both pro-transit and pro-I695. I benefit from both, but I truly believe that a great transit system is part of a great city. I am merely curious as to whether the average bus rider in some way contributes monetarily towards better roads? Craig seems highly adept at delving into government figures, and I'm interested in seeing what he can dig up. Didn't mean to get yer dander up! By the way, I save my religious experiences for other areas of my life. And I haven't had one on the bus recently!

-- bdmichel (bdmichel@home.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichel--Yeah, it occurred to me after I hit submit that your post was not particularly brimming with scripture. IOW, don't take my post as directed personally at you.

"a great transit system is part of a great city"--For what it's worth I agree, I just need someone to explain to me why Seattle's current bus system inadequately serves the needs of its riders. From my experience, Seattle's bus system is *more* than adequate. Personally, I'd go further than that and say Seattle has a problem with *over* capacity.

Put another way, none of the shepherd's flock have ever put forth a convincing argument why we should increase transit capacity when the current system doesn't operate anywhere near peak. From my limited observations, "build it and they will come" has only worked in one place.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 17, 2000.

"Aha! Got it. My figures are for transit, not busses. At least my subtraction was not faulty! We'll have to get Craig to change the term from "Transit" to bus, if that is what he means."

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have no real gripe with most of demand response service for the transit dependent, but that's only about 2% of the passenger miles. Trolley and bus are the vast majority of service, and the service we'd expect a car commuter to use in lieu of commuting. I estimated the farebox recovery based on the 22% overall rate, since the vast majority of the miles were transit, trolley bus, and vanpool. It may underestimate bus transit recovery a little, but not much. Not included in this is huge amounts of transit related money in park n rides and similar things that would NOT be attributable to demand response at all, so I think it's reasonably fair. If someone has figures for farebox recovery for bus and trolley only, I'd be interested in seeing them.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

Brad: I appreciate the response. I've certainly been called worse things than religious. Why, on this very discussion forum I've been called "leech", "loser", and "communist", among other things - simply because I choose to ride the bus rather than drive! In my mind, the solution to Seattle's gridlock must be found through either increased capacity to handle vehicles, or through increased capacity to handle transit users. Since the former is unlikely, the latter seems the only solution. Yet all I've been hearing lately is how we have to decrease service. How will putting more drivers on the road serve to lessen congestion? I would agree with you that Seattle's transit system is basically effective. At least the lines I've ridden have been well used and moderately reliable. Would I pay a higher fare to keep it going? Yes, but first I'd like to see Metro economize a bit. The other thing that kind of irks me is the insinuation that, as a metro user, I'm some kind of drag on society. As if I don't pay my fair share of taxes! Do you hear me complaining about how a huge chunk of my property taxes goes towards putting my neighbor's children through public schools? No, because I believe good schools create good people, and I like living in a city full of good people. In my mind, the same logic applies towards subsidies for public transportation - good systems create livable cities. If one needs to see the opposite effect in action, check out LA. Anyway... So, what do I contribute? Do any of my property taxes go towards road projects? Sales taxes? Federal income taxes? And, how does that get factored into the discussion of what transit really costs? Craig: I enjoy your posts. Marsha: yours, too.

-- bdmichel (bdmichel@home.com), January 17, 2000.

bdmichel--"In my mind, the solution to Seattle's gridlock must be found through either increased capacity to handle vehicles, or through increased capacity to handle transit users."

In the absence of draconian legislation, I don't think either of these options have much to do with the correct answer.

Personally, it's never been clear to me why people worry about congestion as a region's population grows. It seems to me that the two things correlate with one another.

"Yet all I've been hearing lately is how we have to decrease service. How will putting more drivers on the road serve to lessen congestion?"

Given the horrible ridership numbers of the endangered routes in King County (see previous threads), I don't think the proposed cuts will have much to do with congestion. In this scenario, it's a reasonable question to ask whether or not a bus actually *causes* more congestion (and pollution) than it alleviates.

FWIW, this was one of the approaches Metro used against I-695--70,000 extra cars/day during the Puget Sound commute. Personally, I found their "analysis" on the impacts of I-695 quite suspect (it's probably still on their website if you're curious).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 17, 2000.

dbmichael,

"In my mind, the solution to Seattle's gridlock must be found through either increased capacity to handle vehicles, or through increased capacity to handle transit users"

See, here is where I think you might be confused. Increasing capacity to handle transit users is the mindset that Craig has been attempting to educate. It is not a problem of increasing capacity to handle transit users. It is the lack of demand. They built it, nobody came. Why? Maybe it isn't the service we really need.

The road capacity has been neglected in favor of transit, and it simply did not work.

As far as subsidies go, it is my opinion that users will now need to shoulder a larger cost share of transit, in order for new lanes and roads to be constructed.

Like Craig, I think some subsidies should be continued for those who need, and can not afford transportation. This was discussed in the thread "But what about the poor people who don't HAVE cars?"

Have you considered that there might be a better way to provide this needed transportation outside of the cities? Would Demand Response work better for commuters and other transit users, than big busses or vanpools? I think it would. You could wind up paying your fair share and still have relatively cheap transit transportation if it is done properly. It may even take less time than vanpooling, because you can concentrate pickups in cluster areas closer together. You also eliminate park and ride expenses. The vehicles cost much less to operate, and of course the drivers wage doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I think it would appeal to more people than walking to a bus stop in the pouring rain. If you want to increase demand, AND keep costs low, this may be an ideal alternative.

If 10 passengers paid an average fare of $3.00 and you had 10 pickups and 3 drop off points in 1 hours time, I think you could afford the service. $30.00 in revenue should be more than enough to operate 1 small bus for 1 hour. Can it be acheived? Yes, if the distance traveled is under say 10 miles from the original pickup area. You would need to base fares on distance.

Want cheaper fares? We could still shift to this type of service, subsidize it at 33% instead of 78% and keep your fare to $2.00.

While the logistics don't sound practical, they are. Computer aided scheduling makes all this possible. Think about it....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

One other point on Demand Response Service (or a type of subscription service.) It is the ONE service that has experienced an enormous amount of growth. Transits built it and they did come, in droves. Will the regular transit rider be willing to ride, if they have to pay higher fares? I think they would.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

First of all, when you take out the fees from the demand response that brings the farebox recovery from bus and trolley to about 26%. Takes a while, but you can find the fares for demand response because thats 100% of your leased transportation, and thats segregated differently. For anyone still interested in the mathematics.

Yet all I've been hearing lately is how we have to decrease service. How will putting more drivers on the road serve to lessen congestion? I would agree with you that Seattle's transit system is basically effective. At least the lines I've ridden have been well used and moderately reliable. Would I pay a higher fare to keep it going? Yes, but first I'd like to see Metro economize a bit. The other thing that kind of irks me is the insinuation that, as a metro user, I'm some kind of drag on society. As if I don't pay my fair share of taxes!  If you are the typical Seattle user, in a high density area, you probably DO pay your way. But for METRO, we deal with averages, and many of METROs routes are in low density areas that are, and will always be profoundly inefficient to service. For many transit agencies, no attempt is made to service as far afield as King County does.

The trolley buses only average 1.6 miles per trip. They really arent a factor in commuting. Often these trips are multiply counted. Hop on the trolley near Immunex, go to the Spaghetti factory for lunch, come back, bang- two trips. Not saying trolley buses arent worthwhile, but dont believe they contribute much to commuting.

The bus routes, even with the unreasonably long ones in South King County, only average six and a quarter miles. The 215,000 weekday trips really are the equivalent of 22,395 people commuting from 30 miles away. (two trips of 31 miles each way by 22,000 commuters from Auburn, for example). If you look at the total number of commuters and commuter miles in the Seattle area, thats trivial. Im sorry, but theres no way that that few miles will make any real difference. And therein is the problem, we continue to try to push transit out of its niche. I realize that 215,000 weekday trips looks like a huge number, but the mileage it represents, in the grand scheme of things, just isnt that important. And thats before you figure the multiple counts involved with people who use the bus for multiple real short trips in Seattle because they have their bus pass, the free fare zones, the lunch trips, and especially the non- commuting hour trips, etc.

I am not saying that short trips downtown are not worthwhile for the individual, and in high density areas may even pay for themselves. But they dont do squat for the commuting problem, and trying to use transit to solve the commute problem is posing a burden on the whole system that ultimately will be paid for by the people in downtown Seattle that happen to live in areas that transit does make sense. Their fares will go up for their 2 mile bus trip to cover the costs of someone elses monstrously inefficient use of transit to commute from Snoqualmie or Enumclaw or wherever. This has already happened in places like LA (which, to set the record straight, has far fewer freeway lane miles PER CAPITA than most cities. The problems with LA, high population density, extensive transit system, massive congestion, are what SmartGrowth wishes to emulate. A judge stopped expansion of their heavy rail line because a coalition for the low income urban population absolutely demonstrated that the effect of heavy rail was to pull resources out of the fairly cost-effective urban inner city bus system to provide non cost effective service to the upper middle income suburb dwellers.

Im not, as I have periodically been accused, anti-transit. But I CAN do long division, and you dont have to crunch many numbers to see that, proportionate to the total commute miles, the contributions of transit are exceedingly modest. And notwithstanding that, its already well outside its cost-effective niche.

So for those people who use transit in areas where it is cost- effective, great. You are probably at least paying your way. But if you are traveling over 6.25 miles on transit, it is less than likely that you are paying even 26% of your way.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

"One other point on Demand Response Service (or a type of subscription service.) It is the ONE service that has experienced an enormous amount of growth. Transits built it and they did come, in droves. Will the regular transit rider be willing to ride, if they have to pay higher fares? I think they would. " It has been repeatedly shown that the more you make your transit service look like an SOV, the more accepted it is. Demand response looks more like an SOV than transit, same for taxis.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.