Sound transit light rail carried more passengers than its buses.
Sound Transit is only one of eight public transit operations in the Seattle Metro area. The other operations are bus-only (King County Metro also operates trolley buses) so this is little more than an interesting statistic. Also note that the numbers are skewed by service to sporting and other special events.
Seattle light rail up 90% + november 2016 over 2015.
More figures for complete Seattle ridership
The figures provided are for Sound Transit only. They do not include figures for King County Metro or any of the other public transit operators in the Seattle/Tacoma metro area.
Sound transit shows 23%+ systemwide ridership growth for calendar year 2016. Guess the rail and light rail haters are right ? ?
Seattle Link light rail shows an 89 % growth over same period a year ago. This is reflected in the University extension 's one year anniversary.
What is missing from many of these glowing reports about light rail in Seattle, as well as other locations, is the financial data. For Seattle the financial data was taken from the Sound Transit 2015 Annual Report.
In 2015 Sound Transit light rail had ticket revenues of $18.2 million and operating expenses of $64.3 million. It had an operating loss of $46.1 million. The average subsidy per rider was $3.69. The loss was made-up by sales, motor vehicle use and rental car taxes.
Sound Transit also received $132.2 billion in federal funds for its capital expenditures along with $3.9 billion in state funds.
Whether there are better financial alternatives to light rail is debatable. One thing is for sure, however, it does not come anywhere close to being cost effective.
Unless you compair it with the costs of the new roads or lanes needed to control the congestion that would have grown without, including the loss of productive tax-paying real-estate,
What was missed was with the light rail growth there was no reduction in bus ridership for Sound Transit. Now that has to be looked at with some in depth study. Were a lot of the now bus riders last mile first mile ? Were average bus mile trips shorter ? Always have to be skeptical.
Most of Sound Transit’s bus routes are express routes between the Central Business District and the suburbs.
Seattle’s transit is somewhat fragmented with each county running their own bus service, and Sound Transit being an overarching agency that formulates connections between the system including express busses and rail transit.
What is missing from your point, at least as it relates to Texas, as well as many other areas of the U.S., is most people, as shown by their personal choices, don’t want public transport. They prefer the convenience, dependability, comfort, and flexibility of personal vehicles. And they are willing to pay for them, although in many instances they don’t understand the full cost, or who actually picks up the tab.
The relatively small percentage of Americans that use public transport, i.e. less than five percent, has remained relatively constant for decades. It is not likely to change.
The fact that ridership increased 90% indicates that Seattle is not Texas. In congested cities alond the coasts and in places like Chicago, many commuters leave their cars parked at the station to avoid driving into the city center.
The fact that bus ridership did not diminish does not mean the light rail was not effective in controlling traffic congestion, which in Seattle is its main purpose. I am not discussing Dallas, but Seattle. The fact that bus ridership held up indicates a major portion of the light rail ridership is new to public transit. And some of this new ridership may actually use the buses as well as the light rail.
I do not know the situation in Dallas. People there seem proud of the light rail. I do not know the road congestion situation in Dallas. In Seattle, people now regard the light rail as a necessity. I would suspect that a much greater percentage of the populaton use public transit, in all its forms, than in Dallas. Am I correct?
And there may be other purposes for light rail, even subsidized light rail.
Something that we all need to keep in mind is that there is no one right way for public transit. Buses, light rail, rapid transit and commuter rail all have a role to play. The goal is to find the most appropriate medium for the service desired.
Agree completely. A light rail line that sees only 3000 people today is not an efficient light rail line, and its justification, if any, must be in something other than just providing transportation. For just transportaiton, a bus would be far more cost-effective.
Seattle link light rail increasing capacity for the sumer by running more 3 car and 2 car light rail trains. The planning of this system to allow longer trains could be a lesson for other systems.
Link light rail up 16% FY17 over FY16.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2017-q2-service-delivery-performance-report.pdf
That’s a big deal. A of transit agencies that operate rail have seen losses of ridership on other bus routes. What are they doing differently?
It depends on how wide a net you cast. If you add in the increased property values and real estate development that transit project generate, you can wind up in positive territory rather easily.