It’s now been about a day since the Metro fare-increase story broke, and we’ve had the first round of reactions from around the blogosphere. Also, some new information has come out.

From the P-I:

…That translates to a gap of more than $14 million in 2008 and $22 million in 2009, Desmond said. The proposed fare increase is expected to generate an additional $2.5 million in 2008 and $10.3 million in 2009.

The increases would buy time, Desmond said, and allow Metro to re-evaluate its operations as it prepares its 2010-11 budget proposal next year. Additional fare increases could be requested.

So this increase doesn’t solve the problem, but it’s a step in the right direction. Consider RapidRide still threatened. Also:

Sound Transit does not plan any fare increases this year, a spokeswoman said.

I can’t imagine why ST is less impacted, except that buses are a much smaller piece of their pie.

*************

Erica C. Barnett typified a typical reaction: ditch 20/40/40 to put more buses where it’s most “needed.” (The 20/40/40 policy means that 20% of new service goes to Seattle, and 80% to King County suburbs.) Now, I think there are good arguments on both sides on the merits of this rule, but coming from Seattlites, I don’t think it’s very constructive. It’s easy to propose a solution that hurts the other guy. What is constructive is to point out what you’re willing to give up.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I commute daily from Seattle to a fairly poorly-served location in Bellevue, and would benefit greatly from serious investment to improve service out there.)

As Matt Yglesias has pointed out in another context, when critics cry for the plight of poor when discussing a change that, in fact, reduces a primarily middle-class and corporate subsidy, alert readers should be skeptical. This is a common line of attack for anti-gas-tax and anti-carbon-cap campaigners, although I certainly wouldn’t lump Erica in with them.  As usual, Yglesias puts in best:

[O]ne should also recall as a general rule of thumb that if you see a large, powerful, well-organized lobby citing the needs of the poor as the rationale for something or other they’re almost certainly full of it. In the real world, poor people have extremely little political clout and anything that’s attracting a lot of political attention is almost certainly doing so because it’s of concern to the non-poor.

If impact on the poor is the problem, there are far more targeted ways to mitigate it that don’t leave needed revenue on the table.  For example, I think an interesting way to structure the fare rise would be to make it entirely a two-zone increase. Of course, you end up with some weird arbitrage where the Metro fare exceeds the Sound Transit one, but you’re looking at a group of commuters who are saving the most in terms of fuel cost, and also costing the most to transport.

Moreover, fare increases provide the most disincentive to ridership when the ride is mid-day-errand-running by people without passes — for instance, anyone that uses the bus as their primary mode of transportation. They might not venture out enough to warrant buying a pass, or they might be poor enough to not have the cash on hand to ever buy one. These trips to the grocery store and such are almost entirely one-zone trips, and would not be impacted at all by a two-zone fare increase.  Additionally, it discourages use by people that do have cars at a time of day when the system has plenty of spare capacity.

On the other hand, the working poor are more likely to live a long way from their workplace, so some sort of income-based rebate or subsidy may still be in order.

15 Replies to “On Fare Increases, 20/40/40, and Social Justice”

  1. ST spends those operating dollars out of Sound Move, which is why they aren’t in panic-mode right now. They have more leeway before they have to raise rates.

  2. //working poor are more likely to live a long way from their workplace//

    In that case they’re more likely to have monthly passes. Yes, there are probably some that can’t afford the whole pass and buy day-to-day, but if they’re travelling for work I’m guessing this isn’t a huge number (considering how much you save in a month from the pass).

    Of course, if employer subsidized bus passes are a large amount of farebox income, maybe raising pass rates should be the next step.

    1. Matt,

      In that case they’re more likely to have monthly passes

      Pass or no, that pass is more expensive when the fares go up. A PugetPass costs an additional $9 a month for each 25 cent fare increase.

      As for raising pass prices only, it already takes 36 trips for a pass to pencil out in the absence of subsidy. There isn’t a whole lot of scope for increasing the cost before it’s more economical to just buy the tickets.

      2. Indeed they are – in fact, they don’t even offer much of a discount.

  3. i’m a huge rail advocate myself but has there been any thinking by metro in terms of expanding its trolley fleet and network?

    since everything ends up being done on the cheap with metro anyway, they could possibly connect and extend parts of the trolleybus overhead to take a couple more diesel routes offline. adding trolleybus service in some places in the ‘burbs could also be interesting. sure, it’s a capital cost but it’s gotta be cheaper than rail.

    1. I’m a fan also of Seattle’s trolleybus network, but we have to recognize the capital costs involved in constructing the overhead wires and the electrical substations necessary to power them. I don’t remember how many $millions/mile they cost, but I suspect it would be quite a few years before any savings in fuel costs paid back the capital investment. And new trolleybuses also cost more than new diesel buses

      1. agreed – though number crunchers will recognize that the depreciation on a trolleybus vs diesel bus should be calculated differently as the electric trolleybuses have a service life >3x diesel coaches, so over time at least that cost should be penciled up to a better deal.

        i think trolleybuses are cool but hate relying on them because of dewiring, speed issues, problems in wind, and the lack of a centralized traffic / routing / multitracking / express system in the most concentrated areas (e.g. cbd)

      2. The wiring infrastructure cost far outstrips the increased life of the buses. The maintenance cost on those overhead wires is astronomical.

      1. Such as where? I work for a social service agency in the North end, and we’d love to have somewhere to refer participants. As it is now we have only been able to find places where people can get the odd bus ticket for a doctor’s appointment or a job interview (usually with a limit of two tickets a month). We haven’t found anywhere with pass assistance for the working poor.

  6. Aren’t some or all of ST’s Pierce County Service use CNG buses? Could that be part of why they aren’t increasing fares?

Comments are closed.