"Ride Assurance" Fee Public Transit

One advantage of increased bus service over light rail extensions is that buses can be routed to where the commuters are while commuters who don’t live within walking distance of light rail stations have to find ways to get there.   Buses can be routed to P&Rs near where people live.  Pay-to-park lots could offer commuters the opportunity to pay a fee to reserve a parking stall for priority access to a bus route for where they want to go.   The buses they ride on could include access to Wi-Fi during their commute into and out of Seattle, Bellevue, or Overlake.

However, buses can also be routed to wherever there are sufficient numbers of commuters.   For example the entire eastside has seen an explosion in high-density housing with hundreds of apartments and condominiums in Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, and Sammamish.  (Presumably other areas have seen similar developments.)  Many of those developments could surely provide sufficient numbers of commuters who live within walking distance of where a bus could park to justify providing access.  

Rather than paying parking fees to assure access to a particular bus route, commuters could pay a monthly or yearly “Ride Assurance” fee.  The rate could be set such that fees from half the bus capacity cover the typical 35% of bus operating costs, leaving half the bus capacity available for free rides. Potentially thousands of additional commuters could be attracted to public transit, reducing roadway congestion without the need to create expensive P&R lots  

Implementing “pay-to-park” lots and “ride assurance” bus stops requires a comprehensive survey of all the major employment centers in the area.  Find out where commuters live, and when and where they want to go.   Also how far they would be willing to walk to a “ride assurance” stop or drive to a “Pay-to-Park”, walk to and from their destination, and how much they would be willing to pay to assure access.  While the results would be used to prioritize pay-to-park locations they could initially be used to locate "Ride assurance" stops.

Buses could be sized to meet current demand and increase with future growth.  Again the goal being to find a single acceptable pick-up and drop-off location for each route so free access to “unpaid” capacity would be available.   Again the “Ride Assurance” fee approach would enable Sound Transit to quickly attract thousands of additional commuters, the only expense being providing additional bus routes. 

The current Sound Transit Board is far more interested in constructing a light rail spine than in implementing a transit system that reduces congestion.  The area’s commuters surly deserve they consider "Ride Assurance" as a way to do so.