Bus riders alert: Metro proposes 25-cent increase

KatherineL July 3, 2008 (2:24 pm)

This is so frustrating. Just as circumstances encourage more people to ride the buses, Metro says they need to make riding harder to afford for the people who need them most.

I wonder how much it would cost to ride a pedicab?

austin July 3, 2008 (2:28 pm)

They just did this in march!

Al July 3, 2008 (2:33 pm)

Here’s the kicker: I attended the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board meeting yesterday, 7/2/08. Jessica Murphy represented SDOT in a discussion of the installation of Sharrows on 1st Ave S. During the discussion, I asked about conflicts between the “proposed” bus lane down 1st Ave – mentioned in the Viaduct Replacement Plan and the new bike Sharrows. She didn’t hesitate in stating that Metro and SDOT will not be installing any bus lanes, period, during construction. Buses will have to travel the same routes they currently travel with no special accomodations and no additional bus service will be added. I was shocked! Buses will have to travel with and in traffic that is predicted to be horribly heavy, with lanes sometimes restricted to one lane each way during certain periods.

Diane July 3, 2008 (2:36 pm)

yes this is an added hardship on the poor, who ride the bus, and middle class, now riding the bus more because driving is too costly

all their press releases talk about is increased cost of fuel for buses as the cause/need for fare increase

what they don’t mention is how much increased revenue they’ve received from increased ridership

they say:

“past three years alone, ridership has grown by more than 18 percent”

but no mention of how much extra money they’ve made from increased fares in March, and significantly increased ridership in recent months

Peanut July 3, 2008 (2:54 pm)

I heard/read from some news source (can’t remember where) that the increased ridership isn’t really translating into more profit. The reason being that most of the increase is coming from people who used to ride the bus occasionally using cash or tickets but now ride it frequently using a monthly bus pass. Therefore they are not greatly increasing the amount they pay, just the amount they ride.

j July 3, 2008 (3:10 pm)

This is simply unacceptable. Metro needs to find alternate funding. Punishing the poor and eco-minded is not the way to increase ridership. If Metro can’t make ends meet, we need to explore other transit alternatives. And this doesn’t reflect well on our “green” mayor-sure we can ride the bus, if we can afford it. A 25-cent increase on top of the one in March will affect a lot of people, which the powers that be may not understand.

chas redmond July 3, 2008 (3:35 pm)

And if we had electrified buses everywhere and didn’t rely on diesel power would this still be an issue? I keep wondering why Metro is buying more diesel buses when we all know the price of fuel is going to do nothing but increase. Seems like we should be on the verge of a complete electrification of the bus system. Capital investments would be amortized over the life of the system and electric buses outlive diesel buses by about an order of magnitude. More reaction and still no future planning. We really are the dunderhead society.

Diane July 3, 2008 (3:46 pm)

I ride the bus at least few times a week, mostly early afternoon to downtown, back from downtown at night, and weekends all times; since I’m not plugged into headphones, cell phone or book, I actually like watching and talking to people, from what I’ve observed and heard from others on the bus, many are paying cash; it’s mostly the downtown workers who have bus passes; most new riders are paying cash, still learning how it all works, so I would be curious of that source saying ridership isn’t translating into more profit; if that were true I’m betting it would have been included in pr statements; I think they’re receiving significantly increased revenues from new ridership, and I would like to see a factual release of data on those numbers re metro ridership & revenues

and yes I would much prefer electric buses

Mickymse July 3, 2008 (4:02 pm)

Yet another monorail supporter prediction coming to pass, but without a rapid transit system under construction in West Seattle… Thanks to those of you who voted that down!

Paul July 3, 2008 (5:10 pm)

Maybe WSB you can find out the breakdown of the fare and what is tax based, rider based, etc. I know that passenger fare is not the full amount that keeps Metro in business. Lets also not forget the cost to run Metro, I.E. insurance, which I have been told is going sky high next year, I am seeing my second increase this year alone. Its not just the fuel that costs more.

rockyracoon July 3, 2008 (5:22 pm)

The fare only covers about 10% of the operation cost, so don’t think that a 25 cent increase in fare translates to some windfall profit for Metro. And why should people riding the bus not be affected by rising fuel costs?

Diane July 3, 2008 (5:58 pm)

re: fare only covers about 10% of the operation cost

what is your source for this statement?

I don’t think anyone’s talking about a windfall of cash for metro; just asking for the whole picture; for metro to attribute the need for raising fares to fuel and increased ridership, but NOT include any data re increased revenue from increased ridership, is very one-sided

rockyracoon July 3, 2008 (7:56 pm)

I am an operator at Metro. The 10% figure is what we were told in training. I think the sudden and unexpected increased ridership is more of a headache for Metro than a source of increased revenue. They had not raised the fares for several years until a couple months ago. And that was planned long before the big diesel price increase. I don’t know anyone who wasn’t expecting some kind of fuel surcharge. I would not assume they have not provided revenue date, just because it’s not in some documents on the website.

Diane July 3, 2008 (8:33 pm)

first, major raves to all the metro drivers; whatever you all get paid, not enough; the really good bus drivers (call out stops loud enough for all to hear clearly, friendly, good sense of humor, politely answer questions, etc) are so awesome

re: “some documents on the website” comment

I’m only referring to info in press releases sent out today to validate fare increases

Mags July 3, 2008 (10:29 pm)

I think we’ve all heard of the Metro budget shortfall and I think energy prices are a large part of that. Only someone at Metro can tell us exactly how much they are losing, in spite of all the new ridership.

I’ve always ridden the bus to work and am really amazed at how crowded the buses are during commuter times. Anyone who takes a 54 or 55 to work in the morning knows there are a miniumum of 15-20 people standing by the time it hits the last stop on Avalon. This is only going to get worse with all the new condos going in..but, again, definitely best for the environment.

The bus drivers are great and are very helpful to the newbies..It’s a shame that they have to increase, but maybe an opportunity for folks to talk to their employers about free and subsidized bus passes. They are such a great perk for the employee. Not necessarily viable for parents with small kids in daycare or folks who live where there is really poor bus service.

WSB July 3, 2008 (10:40 pm)

This is a long excerpt from a doc I found online explaining the hike from earlier this year. It may answer some of the questions discussed above:

Capturing more operating costs from riders
Most of Metroâ€™s operating revenue comes from two sources, countywide sales tax and
the fares paid by riders. For 2008, Metroâ€™s projected revenues include: $348 million from
sales tax; $87.5 million from the farebox, if the new fares are approved; and
approximately $6 million from advertising on buses.

The county council has set a policy target of recovering 25 percent of the transit
agencyâ€™s costs from riders, so both users and non-users share system costs. This target
is close to the average farebox recovery rate achieved by transit agencies similar to
Metro. With the current fares, riders cover about 21percent of Metroâ€™s costs. With the
proposed increase, fares would cover approximately 23 percent of costs.

Additional revenue would increase financial stability
Sales tax revenues â€“ the bulk of Metroâ€™s funding â€“ can vary dramatically with changes in
the economy. By increasing the percentage of its funding that comes from fares, Metro
would have a more stable, predictable revenue source.
Transit Now funds are for expansion
King County voters passed the Transit Now initiative in November 2006, increasing the
sales tax by one-tenth of one percent to pay for expanded transit services. County
residents may wonder why a fare increase is needed. The baseline budget upon which
Transit Now was based included periodic fare increases. Without these increases, Metro
Transit will not be able to deliver on all the promises made to the citizens who supported
Transit Now.
King County is expecting to add 1.2 million new residents by 2020, and Transit Now is
intended to expand Metroâ€™s system countywide to keep up with this growth â€” not to pay
for increasing costs to maintain daily services and operations. Transit Now funds are
being used to expand Metro Transit service by up to 20 percent over the next 10 years.
Metro estimates that the proposed fare increase would generate $7.9 million in new
revenue in 2008 and $11.7 million when it is in place for a full year. If the proposed fare
increase is not approved, Metro will need to reduce some services to cover the shortfall
that would be created in the budget. Any reductions of this magnitude would affect the
quality and level of Metro service.

Original source here:
http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2007/budget/Busfaresbackgrounder.pdf

white center resident July 4, 2008 (5:53 am)

“I think the sudden and unexpected increased ridership is more of a headache for Metro than a source of increased revenue.”
– If this is true, then that is really sad. Would they prefer lots of half empty buses? They are getting a ton more customers. They should be thrilled.
“I donâ€™t know anyone who wasnâ€™t expecting some kind of fuel surcharge.”
– Uh, me? They just increased fares. Now they want to again just for fuel? Prices have been increasing for a while now, and they could have easily included that into the other increase. They need to act like everyone else and go over their budget and be a little more careful with their money.

Mags July 4, 2008 (7:43 am)

I think the fuel increasesnwe are seeing at the pump are having the same effect on everyone else’s budget..

WS Native July 4, 2008 (9:14 am)

white center resident at 5:53 am – the thrill of getting tons more customers is for the policymakers and public. For Metro management it means overloaded buses, delays and more complaints. The fuel price spike has been in 2008, long after the recent (long-overdue) 25-cent fare increase was approved. It means that there is not enough money to keep even the number of routes and buses they run now. So what’s your alternative? Cutting service? Maybe a White Center route? Bad idea.

Jayson July 4, 2008 (10:50 am)

Well, I deal with this on a daily basis. I work for Metro, and on a daily basis, I hear about overcrowded buses and requests for more and bigger buses.

Metro could cut service to make up for the shortfall, leaving more people standing on already crowded buses. Metro makes a 2-year budget, and had no way of seeing into the futute that fuel prices would skyrocket. And with the economy tanking, the sales tax revenue has not been what was expected. I understand it is a hardship to many when the fare is raised, but the alternative would be most likely less bus service. And as for more electric buses, that’s not a reality for Metro right now. With 60′ trolleys being $1 million a piece and nearly $5 million a mile to electrify a route, it’s not economically feasible.

And as for getting additional revenue, bus wraps may be coming back. And I’m all for placing ads at bus shelters.

Rick July 4, 2008 (11:09 am)

With more paying riders I would guess it’s the same math that’s used in justifying some tax increases. There are more residents (new homes,apartments,condos,etc) so taxes have to be raised for services, infrastructure,etc. I would think more new residences would equate to more tax revenue but apparently even more revenue needs to be added in the form of increases over more volume. Wish I could run a business like that.