The
Seattle Times Friday (1/04) article “Slide parks Sounder Again” is another
example of how neither they nor Sound Transit recognize the absurdity of ST’s Northline
Sounder operation.
Sound
Transit spent more than $500 million creating the Northline Sounder operation,
presumably under the dubious assumption that large number of riders would
choose to ride a train to the King Street Station rather than an express bus
route to central business district.
My
06/12 post “Sound Transit’s Other Debacle” explained in detail how the
Northline Sounder failure to attract riders along with the high operating costs
for the train has forced ST to subsidize each rider by up to $20,000 a year
(doesn’t include depreciation or capitalization costs)
The
Seattle Times chose to ignore the operating cost subsidy, depreciation costs
and those associated with the initial $500 million. Instead their 10/24 Editorial, “No Way to Run a Commuter Line” criticized ST for not meeting ridership
expectations because “Sounder North had not met expectations” for reliability
with comments “getting to work cannot be a roll of the dice”. They implied Sound Transit should do “something” to prevent the
mudslides that forced cancelling train service and “simplify things” to attract
commuters who preferred destinations other than King Street Station.
My 10/26 blog post
pointed out the Times recommendation to prevent future blockages would be very expensive
or they would have been done long ago. The Times suggestion to “simplify things,” presumably meaning
provide alternative Seattle destinations, was not practicable.
The recent 1/04 article
essentially debunks the entire Times 10/24 editorial. Commuters within walking distance
of the King Street Station, aren’t that concerned about the cancellations. They know they always have the bus
option in either direction with very similar commute times. However, whenever possible they much prefer
to spend an additional $1.00 in fare to ride in a partially empty train rather
than a standing-room-only bus.
Unfortunately ST
doesn’t accept the fact that not enough commuters use this option to make
Northline financially viable. Most
public transit systems would reduce the number of expensive train trips and
increase number of buses. ST prefers to keep the buses crowded in a futile
attempt to increase train ridership. (Central Link ridership has benefitted from cancellations or
“rerouting” of competing bus routes.) It's what happens
with a public transit system that only gets about 5% of its funds from fare box
revenues.
No comments:
Post a Comment