April 6, 2015

The following is a response to a Spokane Transit Authority Memo requesting WPC make
corrections to a recent study on STAs Electric Trolley Proposal. WPCs full, 17-page Policy Brief
an Overview of Spokanes Electric Trolley Proposal can be found here. All sources in our
study are provided in the footnotes. The WPC research staff has reviewed each of the points of
dispute and provides this additional detail. We found that none of the objections made by STA
officials merit a correction.
1.) Bus Rapid Transit definition
a. STA officials dismiss WPCs suggestion of a cost-effective bus rapid transit
system by saying the electric trolley is already a bus rapid transit project by
federal definition.
b. We disagree. The proposed Spokane Central City Line is not an actual Bus Rapid
Transit system. In fact, STAs own Central City Analysis separated the Electric
Trolley from the Bus Rapid Transit system in its review of different mode options.
Typically, Bus Rapid Transit systems have five essential features: dedicated right
of way, busway alignment, off-board fare collection, intersection treatments
(signal priority), and platform level boarding. The electric trolley proposal
includes only two of these features. Another difference is that STAs proposed
electric trolley mode would be powered with inductive charging technology,
greatly adding to the cost. Bus Rapid Transit systems are typically powered by
hybrid or diesel buses and cost about three million to five million dollars per
mile. STAs cost proposal is $12 million per mile.
2.) Funding for the Central City Line
a. STA officials say WPCs policy brief wrongly claims Proposition 1 includes a $72
million electric trolley line, because some of the cost may be covered by state
or federal funds.
b. Taxpayers will be asked to pay $72 million for the Central City Line. That is a fact.
Part of that may come from federal grants. Part may come from state funding.
Part would come from the sales tax proposal. Spokane taxpayers are state and
federal taxpayers as well, so they would be paying either way. WPCs Policy Brief
plainly states some of the funding for the trolley may come from federal and
state grants. If Proposition 1 is approved, the Central City Line will likely be built.

If it is not approved, the Central City Line will likely not be built. Thus,
Proposition 1 includes the trolley project.
3.) Economic Impact Analysis
a. STA officials say their own economic analysis shows a $175 million economic
impact from the electric trolley line, and that WPC is incorrect in saying the
impact would likely be the result of development subsidies
b. Indeed, ECONorthwests economic analysis claims a $175 million economic
impact from the electric trolley. This information is pointed out in the WPC Policy
Brief (Page 10). However, we also point out the part of the ECONorthwest study
that concludes, supportive measures (regulations, zoning and direct
development subsidies), where justified, are an important catalyst for transitoriented development. Such is the case in Portland, where the city has offered
more than a billion dollars in subsidies to try and spur economic development
along its streetcar and light rail lines. Because taxpayers have a limited amount
of resources, any future taxpayer-funded incentives or subsidies could very well
come at the expense of public safety or public school needs.
Spokane County Commissioner and STA Board Member Al French says those
subsidies would likely be the long-accepted practice of using increased property
taxes to pay for public infrastructure needed for any new development..."
(http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/apr/06/sta-has-a-lot-riding-onproposition-1/)
On this point, the WPC Policy Brief is correct.
4.) Sales Tax Authority
a. STA officials say they would have additional sales tax authority even if its sales
tax rate hit 0.9%
b. State law says transit agencies can charge up to 0.9% sales tax for transit. STAs
website concurs: By state law, the only legal means of public funding for transit
agencies in Washington is through local sales and use tax of no more than 0.9%.
(https://www.spokanetransit.com/about-sta/view/public-transportationbenefit-area)
5.) Operating cost
a. STA officials do not dispute their estimates that show a $4.1 million per year
operating cost, but they say electric propulsion buses have lower cost than
conventional diesel buses. They also say cost projections are based on a
composite of BRT, light rail, trolleybus and streetcar systems.

b. STAs own analysis says it will cost $4.1 million per year to operate the electric
trolley, so according to this official, WPCs Policy Brief would be correct.

6.) Cost per ride

a. STA officials say costs vary by route and that some routes have more riders and
some routes have fewer.
b. Dividing the operational costs by the projected ridership (880,000 per year,
according to STA documents), the per-trip cost would be $4.73 20% higher
than a typical STA bus, which averages $3.92 per trip. This statement is true,
based on official STA numbers, despite variation on particular STA routes.
7.) Made in the U.S.A. provisions
a. STA officials say multiple charging technologies are manufactured in the U.S.
and meet Buy America requirements. WPC research findings dispute this.
b. According to STA board minutes, STA staff confirms, a U.S. manufacturer has to
be found to make the vehicle.
https://www.spokanetransit.com/files/content/BDWKSHOP-minutes-june2014.pdf
Spokane Transit staff has also told local media that they needed to find a U.S.
manufacturer to make the mode: http://www.inlander.com/spokane/streetcardesired/Content?oid=2189979
STA says it would be the first [transit agency] to have a vehicle look like this.
STA officials have not yet secured a U.S. manufacturer and the electric trolley
buses are not now being manufactured, so STA has not met the Buy America
requirements or identified how it would do so. WPCs Policy Brief is correct.