August 20, 2005
Dow Constantine, meet Milo Minderbinder

King County Councilmember Dow Constantine is all excited about the Elliott Bay Water Taxi

The Elliott Bay Water Taxi route took top marks in several categories:

—Farebox recovery: The Elliott Bay Water Taxi’s established 30 percent farebox recovery rate compares favorably to Metro Transit’s system-wide goal for bus routes ...

—Appeal to tourists: ... Fares paid by tourists can help subsidize transit for commuters and other residents.

Think about the economics for a moment. The service operates at a loss. Fares are subsidized. Bringing on additional subsidized tourist passengers will not create an operating profit that can subsidize fares for others. This makes no sense. Unless, perhaps, the Water Taxi is part of Milo's syndicate.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 20, 2005 08:06 AM | Email This
Comments
1. A vendor selling T-shirts told his employee that the shirts would be sold for $8.
Reading the invoice for the shirts the employee replied” but we pay $9 apiece for these shirts, how can we make a profit”?

One word replied the vendor...”VOLUME”

Posted by: Brad on August 20, 2005 08:15 AM
2. Everytime I'm on it, it is packed. Tax locally, spend locally.

Posted by: CandrewB on August 20, 2005 08:23 AM
3. Ya know.... it's stuff like this that makes me think maybe you right-wingers have a point....

sigh.....

Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 20, 2005 08:23 AM
4. I think your logic has a little bit of flaw on this one Shark. One would have to assume that each passenger adds a negligible incremental cost for things such as:
Cleaning the taxi
Extra weight = More to pull = More gas

So sure, there is an extra cost, but you can't assume that the subsidization is on a per-rider basis. If it were, your logic holds - however now they are working from a farebox recovery model - meaning they are charging a fare to make back part of what was paid in by the gov't. At this point extra riders WOULD help to lower the per-rider subsidization rate that is currently paid. I can work up some numbers if my point needs more substance.

Posted by: bmvaughn on August 20, 2005 09:52 AM
5. Work whatever numbers you like. There are fixed costs and incremental costs. We're still talking about 30% recovery.

Posted by: South County on August 20, 2005 09:57 AM
6. Brendan -- your point is well taken. I thought about that too. But I doubt very much that the service would break-even even if used at 100% capacity. And what happens if a lot of tourists use the thing? They'll either crowd out commuters, or require more taxi runs (at a loss). I suspect that there could be a viable opportunity for private enterprise to run a profitable water taxi. But not at Metro's self-imposed high cost and low price.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 20, 2005 09:57 AM
7. SS, that's exactly right. The only sense in which it "works" is that tourists help up to the point where they fill excess capacity. The minute you add more runs, you are likely back into a loss. Still, you're in a net loss because of the runs that aren't full. And the clock keeps ticking on fixed costs when there's bad weather, breakdowns, and so on.

There is a possible exception...if a major part of their cost calculation was a fixed cost for things such as boat purchases, then adding extra runs could actually be mostly variable costs...and IF the extra runs were full, then perhaps it might actually reduce the total loss on the venture.

That's not the same as producing a net profit to subsidize other ventures.

Posted by: scott158 on August 20, 2005 10:33 AM
8. FWIW, reminds me of the old cat/rat farm scheme that was going around a few years ago.

Posted by: scott158 on August 20, 2005 10:35 AM
9. Yeah, me again, and not a double post...

Unk, that was a fairly gracious comment. You may not realize it, but we share your pain. Personally, I’m more of an economic conservative in my voting than anything else.

The problem for me with certain ideas is what I’ve shared before as the “Disney Effect.” If you ask your family if they want to go to Disneyland, of course they’re all going to say “Yes,” and not count the cost. There’s an implicit understanding on the part of the family members, especially the kids, that the parents have figured the numbers out.

The problem is that ideas like this are floated on a normative basis…what we’d LIKE to have happen…without being honest in counting the cost, vetting the logic, and running economic analysis. We often/usually find the numbers to not “pencil out,” and when we protest…well the cascade of hostile criticisms are legion in number. If the leaders are going to be naive, myopic, and in denial, then the question becomes “Who, then, will act responsibly?”

Monorail. Sound transit. Alaska Way. Bus tunnel. HOV. CAO. The list is seemingly endless.

It’s exactly in this context that so many conservatives nod their heads with approval, when someone at last has taken over a mess, and someone will comment, “the adults have finally taken over.” Lefties hate it, but the conservatives usually have had their patience and wallets tried to exhaustion and have little energy left to celebrate.

Posted by: scott158 on August 20, 2005 11:02 AM
10. I used to live in Hawaii. There is a large tax on all the rooms in Honolulu and Waikiki to support public transportation. It's still doesn't break even... Do you think any city here on the mainland will look and that and see a lost cause? No. Every city and state transportation department keeps telling us it's only a matter of time and it will be worth it.

Posted by: Jimbowe on August 20, 2005 11:11 AM
11. A thing to push for is for any ticket for any sort of transportation to be required to clearly indicate both 'Price to rider' _and_ 'Total price including subsidy'.

This applies to Sounder, Bus lines, whatever. If the only price you are exposed to for something is your personal price, you make decisions based on that. It won't suddenly make everyone altruistic, but it dampens down the stupid arguments 'My bus ride only cost $1.25...' This allows the focus to be true price, not the whining about going from $1.00 to $1.25 or whatever.

Posted by: Al on August 20, 2005 01:34 PM
12. Quick question; should we sell the Smithsonian to the highest bidder who would assumedly operate it at a profit?

Posted by: candrewb on August 20, 2005 02:26 PM
13. Your forgot roads Al. How about getting rid of any tax that could be used for roads (gas, tabs, etc...) and put transponders in our cars that would charge us per mile, per location, per time of day accordingly? They are experimenting with this as we speak; so get used to the idea.

Posted by: CandrewB on August 20, 2005 02:30 PM
14. As a general principle, I think that many/most conservatives would support “use tax” concepts. The problem is, of course, that the actual application of the principle would normally by politicos/lefties that only have the most peripheral or tangential comprehension of it’s proper use…and would most certainly misapply it to accomplish agenda items rather than the true public good.

For example, gas taxes are a form of use tax, especially if connected directly with roads/transportation. The person in Yakima has a legitimate question as to why they should be obligated to pay for a new floating bridge or Seattle HOV lanes. The lib disconnect comes in when what should be road money is siphoned off for HOV or bike trails or parks. There is no connection; therefore it is a misapplication of the principle.

Another disconnect is the inner-city blue types that think that general use roads have nothing to do with them…but then there is the question of the transport of goods and services upon which they depend, and those that transport the soy milk, bike parts, books, CDs, etc will be affected. I hope that this is the closest we ever get to a “value added tax,” which has proven to be a hidden disaster in Europe and other places. It’s the multiplication of taxes upon value, not mileage. And it’s one of the areas that is most open to the multiplication of leftist manipulations and “unintended consequences” that could further strangle the US economy.

There’s no way that I’d ever want the same class of leftist functionary that adds one and one and gets Gregoire to have the power to misapply something that is so filled with danger to the public well-being as what use taxes represent. They are disqualified by their agenda. More accurately, they are disqualified by their inability to separate their agenda from the public good, let alone the fact that the two are actually diametrically opposed.

Posted by: scott158 on August 20, 2005 02:58 PM
15. Makes no sense to me, either. Will somebody please challenge Dow-buddy in the coming election?

Unk Witz, welcome to the world of common sense. Glad to have ya....

Posted by: Michele on August 20, 2005 07:02 PM
16. Haven't you ever heard of the change store? Give them a buck, they give you 10 dimes, or 20 nickles, or even 100 pennies.

How do they do they make a profit? Volume!

(Old, old Saturday Night skit)

Posted by: BananaLand (Aka Iguana) on August 20, 2005 11:48 PM
17. Gosh, Stefan... You'd think this would make you more supportive of the monorail.

At least the monorail folks are attempting to break-even and have no subsidy.

ALL transit and ALL roads in this area opoerate with subsidies. Some of them are rather significant, as you have pointed out in previous posts.

Why do we accept this? And why aren't people more supportive of groups and projects trying to change this standard?

Posted by: FoM Prez on August 21, 2005 12:55 AM
18. FoM Prez (whatever that means): if roads are 'subsidized', then here's the big difference between them and 'transit'----MOST PEOPLE USE THEM AND WANT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (unlike all those empty metro buses rolling around the eastside, wasting my taxes)

Posted by: Michele on August 21, 2005 07:38 PM
19. I love the headline on this post!

Posted by: cc on August 21, 2005 08:15 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?