Mariya Frost: Spokane Transit should get back to the basics

In 2016, voters in selected areas of Spokane County approved Spokane Transit Authority’s Proposition 1 to fund expansion of public transit. Approval of the ballot measure has nearly maxed out the amount of money STA is allowed to collect from taxpayers.

The proposal included $72 million for the Central City Line (CCL) – a previously rejected project referred to as an electric trolley but then rebranded as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

Voters ultimately passed what they thought would be bus rapid transit; it seemed that the CCL would not move forward. Roughly three-quarters of the funding for the CCL ($54 million) depends on subsidies from federal taxpayers in the form of the Small Starts Grant, which funds major transit capital projects, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars and bus rapid transit. The program was cut in the Trump administration’s recent budget proposal.

However, the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill President Trump has recently signed fully funds the Small Starts Grant at $400 million. According to The Spokesman Review, “STA won’t receive any of this funding this year, but plans to request that type of funding during the next budget cycle to help finance its Central City Line project.” The project remains on shaky ground, however, as President Trump said, “I will never sign another bill like this again.”

As the Washington Policy Center noted in 2015, Spokane Transit’s pursuit of federal money came at a tenuous time when similar projects were becoming less popular around the country. Additionally, Spokane officials rebranding the trolley as bus rapid transit was both disingenuous and unwise.

As The Spokesman-Review recently agreed, the line “will not contain some key components of a BRT … system, such as a dedicated lane for the bus and priority at traffic signals, both of which would help ensure the line is not affected by traffic delays.”

Further, STA officials themselves admitted that enhancing bus service, not creating a streetcar-style alternative, would yield the most benefit in the “effectiveness and efficiency” of transit in accommodating growth.

Despite cost and performance benefits, STA officials opted to build the more expensive CCL because it required more infrastructure spending and was electric-powered.

The potential loss of federal funding came at a time when STA’s ridership noticeably declined. From 2013 to 2016, bus ridership dropped 7.4 percent, demand response services ridership fell 3.3 percent, and vanpool ridership declined 20 percent, which is especially disappointing as the Washington Policy Center sees vanpools as one of the most cost-effective transit options. At the same time, operating expenses increased for bus and demand response services by 3.9 percent and 6 percent respectively. Meanwhile, windfall sales tax revenue for the transit agency increased 20 percent.

In other words, taxpayers are spending more on Spokane Transit while the agency serves fewer riders.

Even if STA officials can now get the $54 million in federal money that they want, they should take the opportunity to revisit the CCL and instead focus on improving the quality of services they already provide. The agency should fully contract-out paratransit services; expand and market the use of vanpools as they are the most flexible, cost-effective and least subsidized; and cut administrative costs, which have ballooned 104 percent since 2004. They should also adopt a less expensive, authentic bus rapid transit system at half the cost or simply add more buses to existing routes.

While this may not be the “kind of cool transportation mode” or approach agency managers say they want, it would be the more honest approach and would show a greater respect for the generous amounts of money Spokane taxpayers already give to Spokane Transit officials to provide a basic public service.