Reports: Metro Has “Saved” 81,000 Hours, Light Rail Ridership Lags Projections

Current population trends show that Seattle is overweight in transit spending and infrastructure.

When were these ridership projections done – and were they adjusted for the effects of the recession? At 2007 or 2008 employment levels ridership would likely be at or above the projected level.

data, data, anyone??

The real people aren’t behaving like SimCity characters?

Uh, like, it’s called The Census and all?

Yes, and so here they are making every excuse in the book for the world’s most expensive per mile light rail system, while meanwhile trying to squeeze every penny out of a very effect and low cost bus system.

Oh, you mean those numbers that won’t be released till 2011? Are you capable of any arguments not made from strawmen made from whole cloth that you imagineered into being?

“At this point, Sound Transit seems unlikely to meet its target of 26,000 average riders per day.”

That is really funny. When did ST set that target? Sound Transit keeps moving the goalposts to make their “target” ridership easier and easier to hit. And they still are not going to come close to their most-recent, lowest target.

What about this target from 2000, in a Seattle Times Op-Ed piece written by then-Sound Transit vice chair Greg Nickels:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000211&slug=4004270

“The all-electric Link light-rail system will carry at least 105,000 riders a day – equal to a 12-lane freeway – and do it pollution-free. Tacoma will be making state history in 2002 by introducing the first Link light-rail line, and by 2006 the 21-mile system connecting SeaTac, Tukwila and Seattle will be up and running, possibly going an additional three miles to the Northgate Transit Center if additional funding is secured.

So, ST has moved their target from 105,000 riders per day in 2006, to 26,000 boardings per day in 2010, and they won’t come close to hitting that latest, tiny number.

Where is our 21-mile system? Where are our 105,000 riders per day?

What an insanely expensive joke Link light rail is.

Bailo, acknowledging the fact of a drastically shrunken economy isn’t “making every excuse in the world,” it’s recognizing reality. Try it sometime.

I know of no census data that supports your claim that Seattle is overspending on transit and infrastructure. Support?

Don’t tell the guys at Seattle Transit Blog. They think that SIM city is REAL! The 1995 version anyway.

… and yet, Link Light Rail’s per boarding cost keeps dropping. $6.53 vs $7.65 last year. ST Express Bus – $7.47 per boarding in 3Q 2010 vs $6.27 in 3Q 2009.

Despite being in the worst recession since the Great Depression Link’s ridership continues to grow, I’d call that a success. Still too early to call it either way though and bus operating costs are volatile due to diesel prices.

Am I reading this right?
It costs around seven dollars for every ride?
Ten rides a week costs around $70.00?

What kind of clowns are running this business?
Oh, I forgot. It’s just tax money. No problem.
Time to raise the gas tax.

Don’t forget that Light Rail has no reliable way for counting trips, since they have no reliable way for charging for trips. As an infrequent rider, I have found myself on the train without paying at least a couple of times since the location for swiping your Orca card can be counter-intuitive.

Link light rail cars have automatic counters over each door. ST counts everyone who boards Link trains, even those who do not pay. ST even counts their own employees, such as the people who check fares, as “passengers” on Link light rail.

The Link ridership numbers do not come from counting paid fares, as bus ridership numbers do.

Central Link light rail has replaced a few METRO bus routes — not ST Express bus routes. The Metro bus routes that Link lite trains have replaced had cost per boarding of about $3.30. So, Link light rail has operating costs about TWICE AS HIGH as the Metro buses it replaced.

And Link light rail is 10 minutes slower between downtown and the airport than the Metro #194 bus which it replaced.

Since July, Link ridership has fallen each successive month.

You call this a “success”?

Everyone has missed the serendipity here: Cut some of the south King County bus routes off at Rainier Beach Station, enabling the efficiency goal to be met *and* simultaneously increase ridership on Link.

“ST even counts their own employees, such as the people who check fares, as “passengers” on Link light rail.”

Have you ever received confirmation from ST that they don’t correct for employees?

You should have added “when traffic is clear” to your comparison of Link and the #194.

I call the fact that per-ridership costs are dropping a success, but feel free to add “so far” to my statement. Let’s chat again in 5 years or so or before the ST3 vote, whenever that is. Until then, your chicken little routine is getting old.

How is it a “success” that Link light rail costs twice as much per boarding as the Metro buses it replaced? That is a failure in anyone’s book.

Per-boarding costs were dropping through the 3rd quarter because ridership in the 3rd quarter was higher than in the 1st or 2nd quarters. Ridership in October and November was both below every month in the 3rd quarter, suggesting that the operating cost per boarding in the 4th quarter might be higher than it was in the 3rd quarter. Althout, due to the pathetic ridership, Sound Transit reduced the number of light rail cars it operates at night, which might reduce oeprating costs for the 4th quarter somewhat.

My comparisons of Link to the 194 were comparing average trip times. These include the times when the 194 was slowed by traffic, and also the times when Link was slowed by problems Link trains have on a regular basis. On average — including the occasional slow trips on both modes — the 194 bus was about 10 minutes faster than Link liight rail between downtown and the airport.

Sound Transit has never commented on details of their ridership counts at all, as far as I know. All they say is that there are atomatic counters above all the doors on about 30% of Link cars and that these counters count everyone who boards and deboards Link cars. That includes not only fare checkers, but also security personnel who ride Link between stations inside the downtown tunnel (trips of no more than one mile, and often just 1/3 of a mile), track maintenance personnel, supervisors, etc.

The automatic counters also occasionally will count a large piece of lugger as a passenger. I suspect they also somtimes will count a large dog as a passenger, and people do sometimes take large dogs on Link trains.

If you can find someplace where ST says that they correct for employees riding Link trains, I would be glad to take a look at it.

Why does it always seem like the same people who are quick to point out low ridership numbers on the train are the same people who object to density around the stations?

Is it a coincidence?

All the growth is in the south Sound, around Oly.

Where’s their 2 billion dollar tunnel and $165 million a mile light rail and 5 billion dollar bridge?

We’re spending money on all the wrong things.

I notice the lack of replies to your well researched post…and I thought I had read the number of expected riders was higher…but didn’t realize it was FIVE TIMES higher than what they are claiming now.

Seriously, I think the Local Yokels around her count on Seattle being so out of the way that no one will ever notice their chicanery and double dealing.

Norman/Grover, you are disingenuous beyond belief. Yes, the automatic count surely differs from an actual count. Of course it does. As has been pointed out to you time and time and time again on STB, the ridership numbers Sound Transit publishes are NOT the raw data from the automatic counters. Sound Transit, as Oran has been pointing out to you for over a year, uses the automatic counters in conjunction with manual counters, statistical modeling, and industry standard procedures to arrive at a ridership estimate. I believe ST spokesman Bruce Gray even stepped in once to explain this to you.

And I don’t know whether you’re willfully lying or have forgotten, but Oran has also explained to you that this is precisely how Metro and ST calculate bus ridership.

That is total B.S. from Jason Mitchell.

It was Erica C. Barnett who, on this site, pointed out the low ridership numbers on Link light rail.

I “liked” instead of “replied.”

Erica reports.
The anti-density people are the ones that gloat over, and cause, the low ridership numbers. And pray somebody gets hit.

Ha! Total B.S. my B.Hind. Out of arguments, you turn to lazy insults. Classic Grover/Norman/Copernicus/McMurphy. LOL.

I made two points. First, that you were being disingenuous at best when you claimed above that you know for a fact Sound Transit counts luggage and employees in its ridership reports. Here’s one of many threads where Oran explains to you that the automatic counters are only one of the tools ST uses to make ridership estimates: http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/02/02/ridership-error-in-your-favor/.

To save you the searching time, here’s what Oran told you in that thread on February 10, 2010, at 3:58 p.m. “They (ST) use automatic counters and statistical modeling and follow industry standard procedures. They have the raw data and they can be adjusted to correct for such anomalies.” You’ve been told the exact same thing on numerous occasions, and have never questioned it.

My second point was you’ve either forgotten what you’ve been told or were outright lying when you claimed above that bus ridership in Seattle is determined by “counting fares” as opposed to using automated counters.

In the same thread linked to above, you specifically asked Oran—at 4:32 pm on February 2, 2010: “I don’t know how Metro counts ridership. Where are the automatic counters on Metro buses? I have not seen them. They have them on all doors of every bus? If not all buses, then which buses have them, and where are they? Above the doors, as on Link?”

Forty-two minutes later, Oran replied, “Roughly a third of Metro’s entire fleet (same proportion as Link) have automatic passenger counters. They have a tiny sticker on the outside saying “APC”. They used pressure mats but most have infrared counters mounted above the rear doors and a cross beam at the front door. The buses are rotated such that at least every trip is sampled once per service change period.”

So were you lying, or did you forget these conversations, or what? LOL.

2007 unemployment rates were around 5%; now it’s at 9.3%. The light rail is under projection by 11%. It’s not the recession that’s the issue, it was the overly optimistic projection.

How convenient to forget the construction costs of the dedicated right-of-way for the light rail. Assuming 5.3 million riders now – and 100 million over the next 20 years – you’ll have $26 in cost PER TRIP; $52 per round trip on the light rail.

Of course, including the dedicated costs for light rail (unlike roads which could be used by buses, cars, bikes, etc) completely destroys your argument…

ugh this site has been invaded by nimbys it’s like reading the seattle times comment blog.

Look, I’m not a rail fanatic by any means. I drive buses and really enjoy my job. If you want to talk about a user-fee based road system with dedicated HOV/HOT 3+ lanes/on & off ramps for Vanpools, carpools, and buses, I’m game.

But all of you anti-rail folks seem to be focused on roads, roads, roads and the “personal freedom” of the automobile. In the absence of any serious discussion of dramatically improving how we use our existing, and future, road infrastructure, I’m going to support Sound Transit’s rail development because I know, once it’s done, I’ll be able to ride my bike 5 minutes to a station and get anywhere on the line in about 45 minutes or so. I can’t do that today with my car, unless traffic is clear. I can’t see how it can be done without either user fees or a massive increase in capacity.

You all like to overstate the costs of rail and forget about the costs of our existing system – let alone expanding it. WSDOT is sinking $300 Million into realigned on/off ramps in the Bellevue area to “fix” the congestion in that area. How long will that “fix” last?

Are you serious? That letter from Mr. Nichols was written 10 years ago before the .com implosion and the current housing bubble crash. It’s safe to say economic conditions have changed a bit since then.

Sorry, but you can’t draw anything resembling a straight line between the drop in employment and drops in transit ridership (estimated or actual). Just for starters, things like cheaper gas and reduced auto congestion also play roles. For example, ST bus service is down 5% just from Q3 last year, and last year was already down 4% from Q3 2008. I believe Sounder commuter train ridership has fallen even farther.

Moreover, city-wide unemployment numbers probably aren’t indicative of what’s going on in Rainier Valley, as every study I’ve seen indicates minority communities have been disproportionately impacted by the recession. And the metric eff-ton of residential and commercial development suspended in the neighborhoods along the line since the start of the recession surely has had an additional and not insignificant impact on Link ridership.

Gas costs? They’re higher now than in the past – wouldn’t that drive more people to use transit?

If ridership is down 5% on ST, then why is the use of the light rail – even when existing bus routes were eliminated – down 13% over the last year?

Face it – it’s a money sink, it’s losing riders faster than any reason presented, and we’re spending way too much on the project.

Why should we pay $50 per round trip to get people on a light rail – a means of transportation which is fixed, immobile, limited, restricted? Why not bus rapid transit? A third the cost to deploy, flexible, re-routable (when we have mud slides, or an earthquake that destroys some tracks), can climb the grades we have here (unlike rail), and is lower cost to operate?

Light rail simply doesn’t make financial sense AT ALL.

I’m not sure what numbers you’re looking at. I didn’t say ST ridership is down 5%, I said ST *bus ridership in the 3rd quarter* was down 5% percent compared to 3rd quarter 2009. Total boardings for ST for the 3rd quarter are up 14% compared to 3rd quarter last year, thanks solely to Link, which is up 83%. I’ve no idea where your 13% number comes from.

Link actually not “losing riders faster than any reason presented.” It’s going to end up missing it’s target by a very reasonable percentage, given all the factors cited in my post above.

… and neither does throwing more money at expanding general purpose lanes.

Like I said, you want to talk BRT and other non-light rail alternatives, I’m game. I’m looking forward to driving Rapid Ride soon (B or C)

How does any one person “cause” low ridership numbers?

Somebody named Oran writes something in a blog, and you quote that as “fact”? LOL you are quite amusing.

As you all know, the forecasts were done before the vote to get the sales tax increased to build it. It follows the tried and true technique – low ball the cost and high ball the ridership.

What we have is, yet again, confirmation of what every transportation engineer knows to be true. Anything on rails costs a lot.

Happy new year.

Oops. Hit “like” instead of “reply.”

You’re not the best at debating, are you? Oran Viriyincy is not a random someone—like say “Grover”—posting on the interwebs. He’s an official blogger on probably the most respected public policy website in the region.

http://seattletransitblog.com/who-we-are/

Better yet: if Oran isn’t a trustworthy source, pray tell why you bothered to ask him for information in the first place? And how come you never questioned his response? In the thread linked to above and countless other times on STB you’ve demonstrated that you consider Oran a trustworthy source by asking him questions about how our transit systems work, and accepting his answers.

So again, did you forget these conversations, or were you lying? LOL, indeed.

While there’s a point in this sassy post, I must add that having taken the 194 during several rush hours, it was fairly efficient every time despite heavy traffic (which to be fair surprised me). The only time I’d call Link faster than the average 194 is in situations where there was an accident on I-5 southbound that had traffic at a bumper to bumper standstill.

Ooh, coercive ridership! Also, I’m sure Metro, already struggling to pay the bills, would be happy to eat a loss on all those routes just so ST can meet their arbitrary goals.

Well, there’s already census data available, but using census data as correlative evidence in the first place seems like a non-sequitur since there’s so many variables that applying transit dollars entails that to cite census data as an end-all argument is rather silly.

To be honest I’m hoping that there is even +1 growth in Seattle itself so that any of us can have a mundane cut and paste retort for the every other day “Seattle is dying!!!1!!” John post.