Metro System Overview

Transit Task ForceApril 20, 2010

2

Topics

System Evolution

Environment and Policy Considerations

Performance

Financial Issues

3

Prior to 1995

4

Major Capital Projects

5

Vanpools and Carpools

6

Paratransit

7

Annual Boardings and Platform Hours 1973 to 1995

20

40

60

80

100

120

140'7

3

'74

'75

'76

'77

'78

'79

'80

'81

'82

'83

'84

'85

'86

'87

'88

'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

Ann

ual B

oard

ings

(mill

ions

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ann

ual P

latfo

rm H

ours

(mill

ions

)

Annual Boardings Platform Hours

8

1996-2001 Plan

9

Reallocated resources for natural gas conversion to fund new service

10

1996- 2001 Plan: Objectives

Market Share

Mobility

Cost and Efficiency

Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits

Financial Feasibility

11

Shift to multi- centric service design

- Restructure system- Consolidate corridor services- Improve transfer environment- First use of allocation concept

12

More people, more places, more often

13

Consolidation of service in key corridors

Transit Hub improvements

to enhance transfer

experience

14

Measures of Success

Market Share

Service Orientation

Market Penetration

Mobility

Work trip HOV market share

Overall trip transit share

Cost Efficiency

Transit ridership

Service effectiveness

15

Market Penetration and Use

424446485052545658

1994 2001

Boardings per Capita

Market penetration

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%

34%

1994 2001

% of Households that Use Transit in last month

Overall trip transit share

16

Results and Outcomes

Gains in ridership

Increase in number of households with residents using transit

Increase in transit use per capita

Improved access to a wider array of locations and centers

17

Annual Boardings and Platform Hours 1973 to 2001

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

'73

'74

'75

'76

'77

'78

'79

'80

'81

'82

'83

'84

'85

'86

'87

'88

'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

'00

'01

Ann

ual B

oard

ings

(mill

ions

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ann

ual P

latfo

rm H

ours

(mill

ions

)

Annual Boardings Platform Hours

18

2002-2007 Plan: “Building on Success”

Improve frequencies and span of service on two-way, all day, high ridership routes

19

Funding Issues

1999: I-695 approved. Metro’s funding reduced by $110 million per year (29% of budget)

2000: Transit sales tax authority raised by Legislature to 0.9 percent

2000: 0.2 percent Metro sales tax approved

Dot com bust: The projected sales tax growth to fund most of the service adds in the plan is lost

Plan became largely unfunded, but included the revised allocation policy of “40-40-20”

20

Delridge-Ambaum Corridor

-1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Thou

sand

s

All Other Routes Route 120

Results: 45% increase in

ridership along the corridor

vs. 22% system-wide

21

Major Service Restructure OutcomesAnnual Ridership

Year Area/RoutePre-Service

Change Spring 2008

Net Change in

Boardings

% Change in

Boardings

Added Service Hours

Boardings per Added Service Hour

2003 North King County 2,912,160 4,064,950 1,152,790 4,300 268.1

2003 Rt 358 2,292,340 3,203,730 911,390 8,000 113.9

2004 Federal Way 2,311,640 3,598,320 1,286,680 12,600 102.1

2005 Ambaum-Delridge 4,371,220 5,723,300 1,352,080 12,800 105.6

2005 Rt 7/49 Split 5,829,710 6,092,086 262,376 10,400 25.2

2006 Rt 150/180 2,328,900 3,618,140 1,289,240 20,600 62.6

2008 Central Eastside 1,507,710 1,776,520 268,810 16,600 16.2

21,553,680 28,077,046 6,523,366 85,300 76.5

40%40%56%

31%5%

55%18%30%

22

Coordination Among Central Puget Sound Transit Systems

Regional fare agreement - ORCA

Good neighbor policy

Joint funding of new facilities

Seattle CBD operations

Bus purchasing

Tripper storage

23

Sound Transit Coordination: Service Plans

24

High ridership network improvements

RapidRide/Bus Rapid Transit

Service for rapidly developing areas

Service partnership program

Access and rideshare improvements

2007-2010

25

High Ridership Network

26

RapidRide BRT

27

Transit Now Implementation

Core and developing area services initiated

Service partnerships approved

RapidRide funding secured & construction underway

Drop in sales tax has again resulted in funding shortfall for service plans

28

Annual Boardings and Platform Hours 1973 to 2009

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

'73

'74

'75

'76

'77

'78

'79

'80

'81

'82

'83

'84

'85

'86

'87

'88

'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

Ann

ual B

oard

ings

(mill

ions

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ann

ual P

latfo

rm H

ours

(mill

ions

)

Annual Boardings Platform Hours

29

2009 Ridership

South Lake Union Streetcar

Metro Transit Bus

LINK Commuter Van

Sound Transit Bus

Access

30

Customers

52% Female

90% “choice” riders

Occupation:

73% Adult

9% Students

18% Retired

Median Income: $69,000

Seattle/North King County

East King County

South King County

31

Transit Access/ Availability

32

52%

43%

4%

50%

43%

6%

45%

48%

7%

52%

41%

6%

52%

42%

6%

55%

38%

7%

48%

45%

6%

52%

42%

6%

54%

41%

6%

47%

46%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1993 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Dissatisfied

Overall Rider Satisfaction

33

Environment and Policy Considerations

34

Built Environment and Demographics

Built Environment

Population Density

Employment Density

Urban Form

Other Factors

Demographics

Cost

35

Population Growth

36

Population Density

37

Population Growth and Density Excludes cities where population growth was <2,500

Population Change Between 2000 and 2009 and Resulting Density

3.5

5.9

4.2 4.2

6.2

3.4

4.6

7.4

5.8

4.8

5.6

3.0

11.2

2.3

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Aub

urn

Bel

levu

e

Bot

hell

Cov

ingt

on

Fede

ral W

ay

Issa

quah

Ken

t

Kirk

land

Map

le V

alle

y

Red

mon

d

Ren

ton

Sam

mam

ish

Sea

ttle

Sno

qual

mie

Popu

latio

n Ch

ange

200

0 - 2

009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Popu

latio

n pe

r Acr

e

Change in Population Resulting Population per Acre4.2

38

Employment Density

39

Employment Growth 2002 to 2008

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000A

ubur

n

Bel

levu

e

Bot

hell

Bur

ien

Fede

ral W

ay

Issa

quah

Ken

t

Kirk

land

Red

mon

d

Ren

ton

SeaT

ac

Sea

ttle

Sho

relin

e

Tukw

ila

Woo

dinv

ille

Jobs

Jobs 2002Jobs 2008

479,241 496,585

Excludes cities where job growth was <2,500

40

Urban Form

Resource: Solutions, The Martin Centre, University of Cambridge

41

Community Design

Highest priority -- design with the pedestrian in mind

Promote dense mixed-use development

Interconnected street grid.

Managed parking within the 10-minute walk zone

Buildings fronts at sidewalks

42

Income

Lower income generally translates to higher transit use

Metro riders’ average income exceeds other transit systems

US Public Transportation Passenger Income

43

Aging Population

44

Land Use Plans

Focus growth in cities

Relieve pressure rural and smaller cities

45

Social Justice

Regulatory obligations-1964 Civil Rights Act-Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)

Local Policies

46

Current Policies and Planning Framework

Comprehensive Plan: Overall guidance and policies for the future

Strategic Plan: Strategies for how to get there

47

Comprehensive Plan

Mobility, ensure the ability to move around the region

Growth Management, support livability communities within Urban Growth Area

Economic vitality, support access to jobs, education and other community resources

Environmental quality, conserve land and energy resources, and reduce air pollution

Build Partnerships, to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the transit system

Coordinate, transportation planning and implementation of service

Goals -- define Metro’s role in shaping the region’s future.

48

Strategic Plan

Ten-year action plan to implement the policies in the Comprehensive Plan

Identifies strategies for future development of bus, paratransit, and rideshare services

Describes implementation timing

Guides operating and capital budgets

49

Sound Transit ST2

Link extensions and the First Hill streetcar will provide opportunities to restructure Metro services

50

System Design Tradeoffs

Existing Routes Transit Now Commitments

All day service Peak Capacity

Coverage Productivity

“Choice” Riders Transit “Dependent”

Highest Ridership RoutesWhere tax collected

Service Quantity Service Quality

Dispersed Land Use Centers Focus

Policy Direction determines system emphasis

51

Performance

52

Ridership Change

Percent Change in Ridership in 2009,Motorbus & Trolley Bus, NTD

5.0%

4.2%

-0.3%

-1.0%

-1.0%

-1.3%

-1.4%

-2 .0 %

-2.1%

-2.5%

-3 .1 %

-3.3%

-3.6%

-4 .3%

-4.5%

- 5.3 %

-5 .8 %

-6.0%

-6 .1 %

-6.3%

-7 .3%

-8.5%

-9.0%

-10 .3 %

-10.4%

-12 .9 %

-13 .7%

-14.1%

-17.2%

-1 8.4%

- 22.1%

-25 % -2 0% - 15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 1 0%

S an F ranc is c o M unic ipa l R a ilwa y

M ary lan d Tr ans it A dm in. (Ba ltim o re)

C lev ela nd

St . L ou is

Or ang e C ou nty

Ph oen ix

H ous ton

M iam i

D alla s

C inc in nat i

M ilw au ke e

M T A N ew Yo rk C ity T ra ns it

M T A Bu s C o m pa ny ( N Y)

Sa n An to nio

M inn eap olis

Los A nge les

Po rt land

Kin g C ou nty

D env e r

Sa n J os e

Oa k lan d

Ph ilad elph ia

W a s hing ton D C

C hic ag o

D etroi t

Sa n D ieg o

At lan ta

N ew J ers ey

Pit ts bur gh

Bo sto n

Av er age

53

Operating Cost Change

Average Annual Percent Change in Operating Cost per Platform Hour, 2001 to 2007Motorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

1.7%

1.8%

2 .1 %

2 .7 %

3.4%

3 .5 %

4.1%

4.2%

4.4%

4.4%

4 .5 %

4.5%

4 .6 %

4.8%

5.7 %

5 .9 %

5.9%

6.0%

6.2%

6.2%

6 .4%

6.6%

6 .7%

7.1%

7.2%

7 .7 %

7.7%

9 .2%

9 .7 %

9 .9%

2 2.0%

0% 5% 10% 15 % 2 0% 2 5%

H on olulu

H ou ston

Las Veg as

Sa n A ntonio

L os A nge les

Ne wa rk

M inn eapo lis

D enve r

S an D iego

B alt im ore

M ia m i

Ki ng C ounty

Or ange

D etr oit

M ilw aukee

At lan ta

Ph ilade lphia

St . Lo uis

A ve rage

C hic ago

P ort land

Pit tsb urgh

C le ve land

W ashin gto n D .C .

Bo ston

N ew Yo rk

D al las

Sa n F ra nc is co

Sa n Jo se

O ak land

N ew O rlea ns

54

Transit Efficiency

Operating Cost perPlatform HourMotorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

$ 7 0.2 4

$ 77 .0 0

$ 7 7.0 6

$ 8 2 .2 8

$ 9 0 .8 3

$ 9 2 .9 3

$ 9 5 .5 9

$ 1 0 1 .1 0

$ 1 01 .3 6

$ 1 0 1 .8 7

$ 10 2 .1 6

$1 0 4 .7 0

$ 1 0 4.8 0

$ 1 0 7 .4 2

$ 1 0 9 .6 1

$ 1 1 0.3 8

$ 1 1 1 .7 7

$ 1 1 2 .2 5

$1 1 5 .3 9

$ 1 1 6 .0 2

$ 1 1 9 .33

$ 1 2 1 .1 7

$ 1 2 2 .8 9

$ 1 2 3 .8 0

$ 1 2 6 .2 8

$ 1 3 6 .8 8

$ 1 3 9 .81

$ 1 4 2 .2 1

$ 1 4 6 .7 0

$ 1 4 7 .5 6

$0 $ 20 $4 0 $6 0 $8 0 $1 00 $1 20 $1 40 $16 0

San D ie go

S an An ton io

L as V egas

Atlanta

S t. L ouis

De nver

H ouston

O ran ge

M il wau kee

M in nea polis

H onolu lu

C hi ca go

C levela nd

D allas

Los Ang eles

Avera ge

Por tla nd

M iam i

N ew ark

P hila delph ia

Boston

D etroi t

W a sh ington D .C .

King C ou nty

P ittsbur gh

Ba ltim o re

Oak la nd

San Jose

N ew York

S an F ran cisco

55

Transit Efficiency

Operating Cost per Platform MileMotorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

$5.44

$6.00

$ 6.15

$6 .3 0

$ 6.36

$6.39

$6.71

$7.17

$7.33

$ 7.37

$7.44

$7 .6 2

$7.88

$ 8.1 3

$8 .1 7

$ 8.46

$8.49

$ 8.52

$8.64

$ 9.18

$9.38

$9 .8 9

$1 0.50

$10 .5 3

$ 10.62

$10 .8 1

$1 0.98

$11.07

$1 6.6 0

$17 .7 5

$1 8.76

$ 0 $2 $4 $ 6 $8 $ 10 $12 $14 $1 6 $ 18 $20

Sa n A ntonio

S an D iego

H ou ston

At lan ta

D env e r

St . Lo uis

Las Veg as

H on olulu

D al las

Or ange

Ne wa rk

M ilw auk ee

M inn eapo lis

D etr oit

C le ve land

Pit tsb urgh

L os A nge les

P ort land

M ia m i

A ve rage

B alt im ore

Ki ng C ounty

W as hin gto n D .C .

Sa n Jo se

C hic ago

Bo ston

O ak land

Ph ilade lphia

N ew O rlea ns

Sa n F ra nc is co

N ew Yo rk

56

Transit Productivity

Boardings perPlatform HourMotorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

2 0.22

23.69

23.91

2 4.98

26.05

2 6.54

26.57

27.76

27 .97

28.50

28 .5 8

2 8.65

30.24

30 .3 0

30.62

31 .8 5

32.11

32.12

3 2.28

33.69

34.28

38.26

38 .7 4

40 .61

4 1.0 6

4 2.4 1

4 5.70

46.18

46.35

57.82

64 .5 8

0 10 20 30 4 0 50 60 70

D a llas

Sa n Jo se

St. Lo uis

D en ve r

N ewa rk

S an D ieg o

Cle velan d

H o us to n

Pit tsb urg h

M ia m i

D etroit

A tla nta

Sa n Antoni o

Or ang e

N ew O rlea ns

M inn eap olis

P ort lan d

O ak lan d

W ashin gton D .C .

K ing C oun ty

A ve rag e

M ilw auke e

B os to n

Las Veg as

Balt im or e

Ph ilade lphi a

C hic ag o

H on olul u

L os A nge les

N ew Yo rk

Sa n Fr anc is co

57

Transit Productivity

Passenger Miles per Platform MileMotorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

5.72

6.69

6.8 8

6.94

7 .5 7

7.64

7.97

8.03

8.2 6

8 .5 0

8.56

8 .6 5

8.88

9 .1 3

9.16

9.3 0

9.37

9.90

10.43

10 .9 0

10.98

1 1.01

11.03

1 1.85

12.11

1 2.3 9

12 .5 2

13 .5 6

1 3.82

13.98

1 5.25

0 3 6 9 12 15 18

D al las

N ew O rlea ns

St. Lo uis

Atlan ta

Sa n Jo se

O ak land

C le ve land

S an D iego

Pit tsb urgh

P ort land

D enve r

M ilw aukee

Sa n A ntonio

W ashin gto n D .C .

Or ange

D etr oit

Bo ston

A ve rage

Ne wa rk

M ia m i

M inn eapo lis

C hicago

H ou ston

Las Veg as

Ph ilade lphia

Ki ng C ounty

B alt im ore

L os A nge les

Sa n F ra nc isco

H on olulu

N ew Yo rk

58

Transit CostEffectiveness

Operating Cost per BoardingMotorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

$1 .90

$2 .2 1

$2 .2 8

$ 2.29

$ 2.36

$2.54

$ 2.55

$2.65

$2 .65

$2.74

$2 .8 7

$3.08

$3 .20

$ 3.33

$3.34

$3 .4 0

$ 3.44

$ 3.48

$3 .6 7

$ 3.72

$3.80

$3 .8 1

$ 3.94

$3.94

$4.24

$4 .3 5

$4 .4 3

$4.51

$ 5.31

$6 .0 0

$ 0 $ 1 $2 $ 3 $ 4 $ 5 $ 6 $7

L as V egas

H onolu lu

S an F ran cisco

Chi ca go

Los Ang eles

New York

S an An ton io

San D ie go

M il wau kee

P hila delph ia

Atlanta

Boston

M in nea polis

Ba ltim o re

O ran ge

Avera ge

Houston

Por tla nd

King C ou nty

De nver

S t. L ouis

W a sh ington D .C .

M iam i

C levela nd

D etroi t

Oak la nd

N ew ark

P ittsbur gh

D allas

San Jose

59

Transit CostEffectiveness

Operating Cost per Passenger MileMotorbus & Trolley Bus, 2008 NTD

$0 .5 1

$ 0.56

$0.57

$ 0.6 1

$0.63

$0 .7 1

$0.72

$0.74

$0 .7 5

$ 0.75

$0.79

$ 0.80

$0 .8 0

$ 0.87

$0 .8 8

$0.91

$ 0.9 1

$0.93

$0 .96

$0 .9 6

$1.00

$ 1.02

$ 1.02

$ 1.15

$1.15

$1 .2 3

$1 .2 8

$ 1.28

$1 .3 9

$1.44

$2.48

$0 .00 $0.50 $1.00 $ 1.50 $2 .0 0 $2 .50 $3.00

Hon olulu

Hou ston

Las Veg as

Sa n A ntonio

L os A nge les

Ne wa rk

M inn eapo lis

Denve r

S an D iego

B alt im ore

M ia m i

Ki ng County

Or ange

Detr oit

M ilwaukee

Atlan ta

Ph ilade lphia

St. Lo uis

A ve rage

Chicago

P ortland

Pittsb urgh

C le ve land

W ashin gto n D .C .

Bo ston

New Yo rk

Dal las

Sa n Fra nc isco

Sa n Jo se

O akland

New O rlea ns

60

Financial issues

61

Transit Operating & Capital Program Revenues: 2009-2015

Fares17%

Sales Tax59%

Interest1%

Capital Grants12%

Property Tax2%

Other9%

Excludes revenue for services provided to Sound Transit

62

Transit Operating Program Revenues: 2010/2011 = $968.1million

Fares26%

Sales Tax62%

Other Operations3%

Interest & Other5%

Property Tax4%

Excludes revenue for services provided to Sound Transit

63

Metro One-zone Adult Fare

$-

$0.25

$0.50

$0.75

$1.00

$1.25

$1.50

$1.75

$2.00

$2.25

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

King County Metro Base Fares:1985 to Present

64

Transit Operating Program Projected Expense: 2010/2011 = $1,208.9 million

Wages44%

Benefits21%

Parts, Supplies, Services

12%

Access Service Contracts

8%

Diesel & Trolley Power6%

King County Overhead & Services

9%

65

Capital Program 2009-2015: Total $1.28 billion

Fleet (Bus, Vanpool, Paratransit)

59%

Corridors and Passenger Facilities

14%

Transit Oriented Development

4%

Operating Facilities4%

Miscellaneous and Reimburseables

4%

Asset Maintenance9%

Transit Technology6%

66

Most of Metro’s non-fleet capital program is scheduled to be completed by 2012 (RapidRide by 2014)

Non-Fleet Capital Expenditures

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

($ in

mill

ions

)

Miscellaneous and Reimburseables Transit TechnologyOperating Facilities Transit Oriented DevelopmentAsset Maintenance Corridors and Passenger Facilities

67

-14.00%-12.00%-10.00%

-8.00%-6.00%-4.00%-2.00%0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Actual Original 08/09 Adopted Adopted 2010/2011

-14.00%-12.00%-10.00%

-8.00%-6.00%-4.00%-2.00%0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Actual Original 08/09 Adopted Adopted 2010/2011

Sales Tax Year-to-Year Growth Rates

$350

$380

$410

$440

$470

$500

$530

$560

$590

$620

$650

$680

($ in

mill

ions

)

($104M) ($129M) ($145M) ($158M) ($168M)

Original Revenue Projection

REVISED Revenue Projection

King County Metro - Sales Tax Shortfall

Original 08/09 Adopted Biennial BudgetJune 09 Projection

Annual Gap

Revenue Lost

Revenue Collected

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cumulative Projected Revenue Loss 2009-2013

$704M

69

Metro Transit Cost Per Hour

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cost Per Hour

Inflation-Adjusted Cost Per Hour

70

Revenue/expense gap addressed in the 2010/2011 budget.

-$200-$180-$160-$140-$120-$100-$80-$60-$40-$20

$02009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

($ in

Mill

ions

)

71

Objectives of the 2010-2011 Transit Budget

Long term system sustainability

Preserve as much existing service as possible

Position for rebound if/when economic conditions allow or new revenue sources

72

Building Blocks of Transit CostsBasic service

operate a safe vehicle with a trained driver, reliable under normal conditions, comply with all laws and regulations (88%)

Complementary programsadditional activities performed to support mission

and goals (6%)

Service qualityactivities that meet and enhance customer and

public expectations (6%)

73

2009 Performance Audit

Topics included:1) Bus Service Planning/Scheduling2) Technology and Information Management3) Human Resource Management (Vehicle

Maintenance, Operations, Police)4) Financial and Capital Planning5) Paratransit6) Fare Strategies7) Trolley Replacement

74

Examples of RecommendationsBus Service Planning/Scheduling

Improved training for schedulers Improve accuracy of model calibrationGlobal system analysisReduce layover time in schedules

Technology and Information ManagementImprovements to customer information systems and website,

particularly for emergencies

Human Resource ManagementImproved operator staffing modelLonger window for PM’s and inspectionsEstablish additional standards for maintenance tasks

75

Examples of Recommendations (con’t)

Financial and Capital PlanningImprove financial planning and life-cycle costing modelsReduce reserves in Revenue Fleet Replacement Fund

ParatransitEstablish strategic plan to manage service costsDevelop staffing model

Fare StrategiesEstablish fare goals and identify sources for increased fare revenue

Trolley ReplacementConduct comprehensive review of trolley replacement options

76

Key Elements of the 2010-2011 Budget1. Defer bus service expansion: Suspended remaining Transit

Now improvements except Rapid Ride and already-approved partnerships.

2. Capital program cuts: Reprioritized capital program and reduced number of buses purchased

3. Non-service related cuts: reduced supplemental programs and service quality expense by 10%

4. New revenue/Property tax swap: 6.5 cents for transit; 1 cent for 520 Urban Partnership; 5.5 cents for other transit (including new Rapid Ride “F” Line)

5. Operating reserves: temporary reduction for 4 years6. Increase fares: additional general fare increase in 2011 7. Fleet replacement reserves: $100 million over four years 8. Audit efficiencies: Assumed 125,000 hours of scheduling

efficiencies during the biennium 9. Bus service: 75,000 hours of service reductions during the

biennium. Additional cuts required by 2013

77

The program is now balanced, but a series of service reductions and deferrals will be required over the next 5 years

-1,200,000

-1,000,000

-800,000

-600,000

-400,000

-200,000

0

2012 2013 2014 2015

(Cum

ulat

ive

Serv

ice

Hou

rs)

PlannedTNow/Sched.Maint. ServiceCurrent Service

Reduction also in fleet and other infrastructure requirements