In a previous editorial I pointed out that fewer than four out of every 1,000 Bend residents ride the bus each day, and that number is declining on a yearly basis, even as oil prices increase. In fact, Bend Area Transit’s numbers indicate that ridership is now down to one person per mile. Thus, even the claim that BAT is good for the environment is simply not credible. The problem is ridership on the current system. It’s got to be increased, or this system as it currently exists just doesn’t make any sense.
Here, I’d like to examine the costs of the transit system. We find that not only is the system very underutilized, it is also very expensive. The city and BAT have not properly laid the groundwork for a new tax district.
The good measure of systems costs is the cost per ride. By BAT’s numbers, it costs $5.40 each time someone steps on the bus. One might think that the tax rate for the new tax district would be sized to cover this shortfall. That would be about 20 cents per $1,000 of assessed tax value. Instead, BAT is asking for almost twice that amount. This is equivalent to a property tax increase of almost 14%. BAT is expanding its budget by 58% without first improving the marginal performance of its current system. BAT shouldn’t have asked for this increase at this time.
What will taxpayers get for their extra $1.5M? In addition to one new route and added hours of service, we will get five new full time management employees. These include a general manager, an operations manager, a finance manager, a clerk and a marketing/outreach specialist. How did BAT ever get along before?
It’s not a good sign that the new system is planning to become so top-heavy right out of the box.
The new North/South route found on the Citizens for Bend Area Transit website is such an obviously bad idea, I’m surprised they show it. It takes rider nowhere near major areas of commerce. It doesn’t even go to the bus terminal where riders could catch a transfer to reach their workplaces. This certainly doesn’t build confidence in BAT planning.
BAT already has a problem with ridership in daylight hours. How many people do they envision sitting at the Hawthorne Station waiting for a transfer at 7:00pm in the dead of winter? Has BAT really thought this through? It appears to me that taxpayers will not be getting value for their dollar. If I had an extra $0.39 to spend, I think it would be better spent at COCC.
Steve Stambaugh, Bend
This article appears in Oct 23-29, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Steve,
Good points on the many fallacies of BAT. Bend is simply not big enough to support mass transit. If it were, the market would have provided a solution already. You are absolutely correct in saying BAT is an inefficient use of tax dollars and fuel. It makes no sense to drive empty busses around town all day. One correction though, it actually costs $16 every time someone steps on the bus.
You’re definitely on the right track. However, I wish you had taken the thought to its logical conslusion and declared BAT a failure that needs to be terminated for the benefit of the tax payers and the 99% of the town population who don’t use the service.
Providing affordable, reliable transportation to those who need it in Bend is an undeniably strong argument for continued bus service. Measure 9-60 will provide that by raising $2.8 million in it’s first fiscal year 2009-2010 and presumeably similar amounts in subsequent years. This new property tax alone would then provide approximately 92% of the cost of operating BAT when you consider the budget for fiscal year 2008-2009 is $3.0 million. As it is now, Federal and State grants account for 48%, the City general fund 46%, and rider fares 6%. With passage of 9-60 comes an assurance of not only stabilized funding for future operations but also means that it will come from local property owners.
Using tax dollars to provide on-demand taxi rides would be less of a burden on the tax payer and pump dollars into the local economy as well.
BAT is a poorly thought out, premature ego trip from our local city government who are only interested in throwing good money after bad. Admit the mistake and end the blood-letting. There are more important things to spend money on–or better yet, not spend at all!