A private collection of material focusing on the never ending joys of the Trimet industrial complex-Follow the Twitter feed for complete coverage and trimet scanner calls
https://twitter.com/AlYourPalster
Trimess
Saturday, January 21, 2012
MACFARLANE (head squid) INTERVIEW WITHOUT COMMENTARY
If rail is so cheap, why aren't we replacing our buses with rail?
What Neil refused to address (and frankly this interview was such a softee...where is Tim Russert when you need him?) was why the bus operating cost is so high:
1. Increased maintenance cost of aging buses 2. Increased fuel consumption compared to newer buses 3. Failure to purchase high capacity buses that have equal operating costs but higher revenue potential on high capacity routes 4. Failure to attract riders (lower revenues) 5. Unreliable service discourages ridership (lower revenues) 6. Requirement that bus operating cost includes costs that are related to MAX but not bus (i.e. interest expense, the raiding of depreciation funds for MAX instead of for bus replacements) 7. Requirement that bus operating costs are used to replace buses rather than easily attainable state and federal programs. 8. Requirement that bus operating costs cover a good number of TriMet employees whose only function is to support the MAX system
And what Neil conveniently overlooked was that the 72 bus surpasses any of the MAX lines in "subsidy" amount. Why is that?
Many bus lines actually are on par with the MAX system. I believe the 33 actually costs just as much as MAX does (with all of the above factored in, so in reality it probably costs less). However when you use an "average" you take all the lines' operating costs, and divide them by the number of lines.
The problem is:
TriMet has 80 distinct bus routes (and if you break away the interlined routes, you have 89 routes). But the majority of these routes don't even operate seven days a week or even during mid-day hours. Many of these routes have high operating costs because TriMet allocates certain costs equally (thus burdening marginal routes), or the routes are assigned high deadhead/non-revenue costs (which is what interlining is supposed to all but eliminate). The express buses, in particular, are forced to spend more than 50% of their time in non-revenue service - that's money being thrown away that TriMet can't recoup because it won't have riders to pay the costs.
Other transit agencies have figured it out - positioning buses closer to the start/end of their runs, having buses and trains positioned downtown at rush hour... Even those anti-bus/pro-rail advocates have to accept the brilliance of Sound Transit not having to lug empty trains back to Seattle where the maintenance facility is each night - they are serviced during the day, and parked at night in Everett or Tacoma. (And the maintenance is done by Amtrak who already had a maintenance shop in Seattle... Corvallis uses the same mechanics and until recently even the same garage for transit buses and school buses, because First Student operates both the school and city bus system.)
What really needs to happen is an independent, third-party audit of TriMet's books. There's something going on into why TriMet is secretive about its finances, and why other transit agencies not only aren't, but show a pattern inconsistent with what TriMet reports for operating costs. Why does King County Metro have a higher operating cost per rider? Why does Community Transit and LTD have such lower bus operating costs? Why can C-Tran get two more miles out of a gallon of diesel? Why does Sound Transit report that a light rail rider costs closer to $8/boarding ride?
4 comments:
You can't have rail without buses. It won't work. TriMet should concentrate on growing it's bus service instead of destroying it.
If rail is so cheap, why aren't we replacing our buses with rail?
What Neil refused to address (and frankly this interview was such a softee...where is Tim Russert when you need him?) was why the bus operating cost is so high:
1. Increased maintenance cost of aging buses
2. Increased fuel consumption compared to newer buses
3. Failure to purchase high capacity buses that have equal operating costs but higher revenue potential on high capacity routes
4. Failure to attract riders (lower revenues)
5. Unreliable service discourages ridership (lower revenues)
6. Requirement that bus operating cost includes costs that are related to MAX but not bus (i.e. interest expense, the raiding of depreciation funds for MAX instead of for bus replacements)
7. Requirement that bus operating costs are used to replace buses rather than easily attainable state and federal programs.
8. Requirement that bus operating costs cover a good number of TriMet employees whose only function is to support the MAX system
And what Neil conveniently overlooked was that the 72 bus surpasses any of the MAX lines in "subsidy" amount. Why is that?
Many bus lines actually are on par with the MAX system. I believe the 33 actually costs just as much as MAX does (with all of the above factored in, so in reality it probably costs less). However when you use an "average" you take all the lines' operating costs, and divide them by the number of lines.
The problem is:
TriMet has 80 distinct bus routes (and if you break away the interlined routes, you have 89 routes). But the majority of these routes don't even operate seven days a week or even during mid-day hours. Many of these routes have high operating costs because TriMet allocates certain costs equally (thus burdening marginal routes), or the routes are assigned high deadhead/non-revenue costs (which is what interlining is supposed to all but eliminate). The express buses, in particular, are forced to spend more than 50% of their time in non-revenue service - that's money being thrown away that TriMet can't recoup because it won't have riders to pay the costs.
Other transit agencies have figured it out - positioning buses closer to the start/end of their runs, having buses and trains positioned downtown at rush hour... Even those anti-bus/pro-rail advocates have to accept the brilliance of Sound Transit not having to lug empty trains back to Seattle where the maintenance facility is each night - they are serviced during the day, and parked at night in Everett or Tacoma. (And the maintenance is done by Amtrak who already had a maintenance shop in Seattle... Corvallis uses the same mechanics and until recently even the same garage for transit buses and school buses, because First Student operates both the school and city bus system.)
What really needs to happen is an independent, third-party audit of TriMet's books. There's something going on into why TriMet is secretive about its finances, and why other transit agencies not only aren't, but show a pattern inconsistent with what TriMet reports for operating costs. Why does King County Metro have a higher operating cost per rider? Why does Community Transit and LTD have such lower bus operating costs? Why can C-Tran get two more miles out of a gallon of diesel? Why does Sound Transit report that a light rail rider costs closer to $8/boarding ride?
Great questions Erik!
Post a Comment