Last year, we released our third, comprehensive review of Ben Franklin Transit’s (BFT) performance. The study demonstrated that BFT is collecting increasing amounts of sales tax revenue and increasing operating costs despite serving fewer people.

We are calling for a reduction in the sales tax BFT collects to reduce the financial burden on local taxpayers, to contract out demand response services to save money, and to right-size the agency to existing levels of ridership. The study received extensive local media coverage, as well as a response from the transit agency.

This month, we were able to visit with BFT leadership – General Manager Gloria Boyce, Board Chair and Pasco Mayor Matt Watkins, and Director of Planning and Service Development Keith Hall.

We are grateful that BFT gave us nearly two hours of their time to share information about their agency, offer candid feedback on our study, and listen to our concerns. We hope that other transit agencies across the state take similar opportunities to engage with all members of the public, including those with whom they disagree.

BFT offered their perspective on their role in the Tri-Cities community, explanations for the inverse relationship between falling ridership and rising costs, the challenges of being classified as a large urban transit system, and the value they place on their relationship with labor unions.

Here are a few thoughts on some of those points.

Ridership

• In 2010, due to the downturn in the economy, BFT officials cut service. Some routes were consolidated and service stopped at 6pm, so people could take the bus to work but not back home (we were not provided data for how many people were impacted). Later, in response to our 2015 study, BFT said that transit ridership was beginning to rebound across the state from the “economic downturn.”
  
  Interestingly, in a recent October 2018 memo that WPC obtained through a public disclosure request, BFT leadership attributed recent “downward ridership trends” to several factors, including “economic prosperity.” In other words, BFT has blamed declines in ridership on both a strong economy and a weak economy.
   
• BFT officials said they couldn’t get people across town without a high transfer rate, so they rerouted service in 2016-17 for shorter travel times and fewer transfers. They expected ridership to decline, in part due to the way ridership is reported in unlinked trips. If a rider makes three transfers to get to their final destination, three trips are reported rather than one complete trip. Fewer transfers mean fewer unlinked trips.
  
  We are skeptical that the reduced transfer rate would impact ridership to the degree that it has and requested a transfer rate from BFT, which the agency said it would provide. Further, although we understand how this change might affect ridership counts, we also know that reducing the number of times a rider has to transfer makes bus service more convenient and attractive, which could result in comparable ridership gains.
  
  Between 2009 and 2017 ridership has consistently declined. Between 2014-2017, ridership declined 20%, while population increased 15%. While BFT officials provided several possible reasons, as they have in the past, they do not adequately explain the decline or the fact that ridership still continues to fall despite BFT’s recent service improvements.
   
• BFT also argued that changes in rider counting technology contributed to the decline in riders. Until 2016, BFT used manual clickers, which do not allow corrections if there is a mistake in the count. In other words, the agency suggested they may have reported inflated ridership counts.
  
  The decrease in ridership has been fairly consistent, however, so we do not believe this, coupled with a reduced transfer rate, explains the steep ridership decline. We have asked BFT to analyze their data to determine how much of the decline is related to people not wishing to use their services, or finding more convenient ways to travel.

Costs

• One of the challenges BFT faces is to design proficient service that accommodates three cities with their own peak travel demand. Another challenge is in street design, as some buses can’t stop where people want to go, so BFT deploys Dial-a-Ride service, which unfortunately is more expensive.
   
• Another financial challenge is the federal requirement for discounts on demand response trips for those with disabilities. The federal government requires those trips cost no more than two times the base fare of fixed route service. Because ridership for disabled people is much lower than that of fixed route buses, the subsidy for those trips is extremely high. BFT contracts with the Arc of Tri-Cities to achieve certain efficiencies and is looking to be more cost-effective.
  
  We agree that everyone should have access to mobility, including seniors and the disabled. BFT officials know their budget and operations best, and we look forward to seeing the cost-saving efforts they mentioned being implemented in the future.
   
• When Tri-City Taxi went out of business and BFT lost their contractor, they did reach out to private ridesharing services to meet the service need. While the agency is operating the service now, likely at a greater cost to taxpayers, they continue to look for a low-cost contractor.
   
• BFT’s vanpool program has a high farebox recovery rate (89%). It also has outstanding maintenance that kept failures between breakdowns in 2016 to 1/586,058 revenue miles, which is the best in the state. This is especially impressive given that BFT has an older vanpool fleet.

Relationship with federal government and unions

• In 2012 BFT was reclassified as a large, rather than small, urban transit system. This is a federal designation, along with which come new federal requirements, including plans, programs, and procedures transit agencies must comply with to receive federal funding. Further, because BFT became a direct recipient of federal funding, it no longer qualified for local programs.
  
  There is something to be said about accessing federal funding we all pay into, replacing local taxes that transit agencies would impose without federal funding. However, transit agencies do not have to be chained to the federal government and the costly bureaucracy that comes with it. If BFT reduced operating expenses, more sales tax revenue could be used to replace federal funding (which helps pay for capital expenses), offering BFT more flexibility.
   
• BFT officials say the relationship with their local labor union is important to them. In their 2018-23 Transit Development Plan, BFT attributes rising operating expenses to inflation and labor costs. Nearly all of the sales tax Tri-Cities residents paid to BFT (93%) in 2018 went toward increased operating expenses. Taxpayers have a direct interest in how BFT manages their relationship with labor unions.
  
  In their memo to staff in October 2018, which we obtained through a public disclosure request, BFT leadership stated, “While the Washington Policy Center recommends that BFT contract out its services, we have no plans to do so. We value our partnership with Teamsters in providing service to the community, including all of the public transportation professionals who operate and maintain our fleet and facilities.”
  
  How much are taxpayers willing to spend on that relationship? Do subsidized riders value the Teamster relationship more than they would value more service? Why couldn’t the relationship with contract workers be just as positive?
  
  The relationship with unions is a choice with trade-offs, like anything else. BFT could renegotiate their agreement with Teamsters, or open negotiations up to the public. BFT leadership said that contracting out or changing operations to save taxpayer money was unlikely to happen because of union pressure and influence. WPC reminded leadership they have a responsibility to renegotiate those contracts with the interest of taxpayers in mind. Although BFT leadership seemed resistant, we are hopeful they will reconsider.

BFT should focus on serving the public first by reducing sales taxes, contracting out services to achieve savings, and becoming more cost-effective. Not doing so, while operating expenses as well as salaries and benefits grow despite declining ridership, raises questions about the fairness of BFT’s taxing authority.