Kitsap Transit faces another round of service cuts to reduce costs while trying to offer mass transit where there is little “mass” to be served.
Local sales tax revenues pay more than 80 percent of KT’s costs, and those revenues are down just like all other sales tax revenue.
The problem isn’t a failure to allocate a big enough share of local taxes to mass transit. KT receives 38 percent of the local sales taxes we pay, and the rest goes to county and city governments.
People just aren’t spending as much during this recession on retail purchases or on new construction that had been generating a big part of local sales tax payments.
When the fares paid by riders constitute such a small part of the total cost of the service, significant reductions in tax revenue have a big impact on the ability to continue the same level of service.
KT already focuses quite a bit of its service on commuters during the peak traffic hours, but even with this focus the fares pay little of the total cost for routed buses.
This situation is typical for areas that have relatively low population density. Even a focus on reducing rush-hour traffic congestion by offering bus service can’t make up for the low number of people who use mass transit.
A quick look at some of the numbers shows the nature of the problem.
For routed buses, the average cost per passenger is $5.04, and a little less than 17 percent of the cost is covered by fares.
Worker/driver buses cost less and cover more of the cost with fares. The average cost per passenger is $4.81, and fares cover 77 percent.
Another part of KT’s system is ACCESS service to the elderly and disabled, and it is necessarily expensive.
The cost is almost $21 per passenger, and fares cover less than 5 percent.
It’s pretty clear that cost reductions, if they are to be found, have to come from services that depend most on subsidies from local sales tax revenue.
Fares could be increased again, but there is a point of diminishing returns when fares get too high.
Another fare increase might help close the gap between revenues and costs, but if riders use the service less, the fare increase may have little effect.
Cutting costs by reducing service levels is more likely to eliminate the projected budget deficit.
In South Kitsap, the service reductions under consideration include combining five bus routes into three routes.
Having fewer routes in operation could reduce the number of buses and drivers and thus cut costs, but of course it would mean less convenient service for riders.
Throughout the county, there could be fewer ACCESS runs each day, so that more passengers would probably be riding in the same vehicle at a time.
Since the average cost per passenger for ACCESS is so high, any significant reduction in the number of vehicles and drivers used to provide the service would have a substantial effect on the deficit.
The objective should probably be to provide the best service to the most riders with the funds available.
Some people are going to be inconvenienced, if they have been riding buses with few other people on them. Their service is likely to change in order to cut costs.
But, of course, making the service too inconvenient can have the same effect as raising fares too high. Fewer people ride, and revenue goes down.
Administrators will be giving South Kitsap residents two chances to offer suggestions on how to bring costs into line with revenue: 2 p.m. at Givens Center on Sept. 9, and 7 p.m. at Harper Church on Sept. 11.
For the few who use KT services to commute or for other purposes, the chance to see what may change in the near future and to comment on the proposals won’t come around again — until the next cuts, if more are needed.
Bob Meadows is a Port Orchard resident.
