Two weeks before ballots are mailed in the April vote on hiking taxes to prevent a 17 percent cut in bus service, our news partner The Seattle Times has two transit stories today.
The first is on a debate in Bellevue Wednesday over the proposal for an additional $60 car-tab fee and a tenth-of-a-cent sales-tax increase for roads and buses.
It did not go particularly well for pro-transit advocates, the Times notes:
An early face-to-face over King County’s proposed car-tab-and-sales-tax measure to fund transit and roads took place in front of one of the few organizations opposing the measure, the pro-highway Eastside Transportation Association (ETA)….
…audience members complained about how Metro King County Transit is managed, voiced concerns about seeing some virtually empty buses on some routes and suggested having bus passengers themselves pick up a larger share of the service’s costs.
Metro historically has had difficulty providing the Eastside – in the past not bus friendly – with enough service to justify the transit tax dollars the region contributed. One result was buses operated with few riders.
The other, more lively, story is an attempt by the Times to crowd-source the answer to this question: “Full Metro bus 
pass you by?
“Crowded buses so full they sometimes have to pass by would-be riders. That’s been one manifestation of King County Metro Transit ridership growing back to pre-recession levels.
“Has a full bus passed you by at a bus stop? Tell us about it, we’re mapping pass-ups.”
Ballots will be mailed April 2 for the April 22 election.
I saw a bus going down 15th this week that was jammed packed – stop at a bus stop that was jammed packed & wondered how they were going to squeeze them all in.
Voting for it. I would prefer a graduated tax based on the value of the car but Tim Eyman took that option off the table. We have 4 cars but often use buses to get around to big events. We need more bus service not less.
I can’t believe someone compared Seattle to Detroit. Seattle hasn’t been dependent on one or two industries since the ’60s, we are nothing like Detroit.
Thomas, as I explained in #17 the data is misleading.
Seriously, neighbors – read this before you vote. Metro’s payroll has gone up 70% in the last decade. This is not spin – it’s data:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/notes/king-county-metro-bus-driver-wages-grow-out-control
For those of you who are against this you should save some of your outrage for the next increase. There will never, never (worth repeating) be enough money to “save” Metro. If you think about it, the City of Seattle and King County are ponzi schemes. The only way to support it is to replace the current set of tax payers with another set who make more money and have more disposal income to support the scheme. What happens when the ponzi scheme fails? It is called Detroit.
Buster #19
Do you know someone that is more qualified? If so, please tell ST so they can get more bang for their buck.
Also, Metro not only has drivers but also mechanics. Much of Metro’s fleet is identical to ST’s.
I was wondering when someone would bring up Tim Eyman. Citizens have voted not once but twice to stop throwing taxes onto our car tabs. It is the will of the people. (don’t shoot the messenger). Yet that is exactly what transit aims to do.
@18 Metro is reimbursed for those costs, and the stupid Washington Policy Center did not account for that in their propaganda. They simply said that Metro’s costs grew by double the inflation rate. Well guess what? that’s because they added a lot of service that hundreds of thousands of people rely on. It would be funny, if legislators didn’t take them seriously and delay a real solution to Tim Eyman’s destructive initiatives by over a decade. We need to fund our bus service now and avoid drastic cuts.
Proportional car tabs? or Any taxation that is proportionally based on income or wealth? Are you kidding? This WA State. The most regressive taxation state there is. WA Wins first prize in that contest for the last 40 years, every year.
The point about ST using KingCoutyMetro (KCM) to run the ST buses. The point is, why is ST using KCM at all? However, when you examine “power” and “government” and “unions”, in a dictionary, the 3 words are synonymous. KCM “owns” the downtown Seattle (bus) transits tunnel (DSTT). Y the tax payer does not own it. Your function is to pay for it. KCM owns it. The union owns KCM. Pay more car tabs and shut up “citizens”. Sheesh, did you chumps even think your “vote” mattered?
@Melanie – Metro is fully reimbursed the costs of operating Sound Transit service and then some when you include administrative fees.
Thomas, that claim is a little bit misleading. It’s simply comparing the total paid in salaries. If it was the total paid in salaries divided by the number of people paid it would be a much more interesting number.
The link doesn’t indicate whether the number of drivers increased, decreased, or remained the same from 2000 to 2008.
Also, Metro operates some service for Sound Transit. WPC never acknowledges that some of Metro’s revenue comes from Sound Transit.
In 2000, Sound Transit had been operating bus service for one year (they started September 1999). The number of routes Metro operated for Sound Transit grew in those 9 years, which probably means Metro had to hire more drivers.
…and the people paying sales an property taxes.
Let’s start charging “commuter bicycle” tabs! all for people trying to help out environment, but too many bike lanes in local streets. Who’s paying for that! The people stuck paying higher cars tabs and buses fare hikes.
In the last ten years, Metro bus drivers’ salaries grew SEVENTY PERCENT. Before they cut service, raise fares, or raise car tabs, they need to get the drivers’ union under control:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/notes/king-county-metro-bus-driver-wages-grow-out-control
As usual, King County offers a disproportional fee hike for scooterists and motorcyclists. I sure wish fees were proportional to the value of the vehicles. If “low-income” meant people with one motorized vehicle worth less than $15000 AND household income under $80,000 I’d be in favor of this.
Maybe it’ll be less expensive to move to a pricier yet “walkable” neighborhood where there are no steep hills to challenge bicyclists and the convenience of having a motorized vehicle isn’t worth the cost of operating and maintaining one.
Looks like I need to buy more cars to fit in here in Maple Leaf, no wonder I hear complaints about parking!
Dawgster, $1/day is not likely to cover implementation costs. Sound Transit has a paid parking pilot; you may be interested in the results.
King County needs to get out of the ferry business (West Seattle water taxi) & consider charging a nominal fee (e.g., $1 a day) for park-n-ride parking (capture the carpoolers who use Metro services). I’m a dedicated 77 rider, but this proposal sucks (for a lack of a better word).
Excellent document Tim. Thanks for the share. Our family almost never uses metro, not proud of that but its a fact. I don’t mind helping out but its just too much with everything else we have going on as in trying to put two kids through college, etc, etc.
@An Observer No, it’s not. The existing $20 expires in May
Regarding raising bus fares: According to this doc fares only account for 17% of Metro’s revenue. To cover 100% of it, fares would have to hit around $13.25 off-peak.
It is sixty bucks per car including the existing twenty. I too have five cars. Still waiting for $3o car tabs. I only drive one car at a time, so am keeping four cars off the road any time I am in one of them.
Raise bus fares and leave the cars alone, cut service, fire some overpaid government employees.
I can’t afford another government entity taking ever more money out of my wallet, I am apparently considered a bottomless pit of funds to exploit.
Enough, already.
I will gladly pay extra to continue to have bus service. It is hard to convince people to ride public transportation that does not exist. The less cars the better. I would also be in favor of a higher gas tax. Maybe we could even give more money to our school with the extra revenue.
I just have to vote no. We have two teens that have cars only worth a few hundred dollars. In all our family has 5 cars. That’s $300 a year for tabs. That what one of the cars is worth!!The cars are not in our kids name so we can’t take advantage of the low income thing. I would have voted yes for the proposal that based the tabs on the value of the car but no can do this one. A jump from $20 a tab to $60 a tab is too much. And for ten years as well, nope.
The Seattle Times story today was disappointing- focusing on misleading information from the only organization that opposes this measure. (All 9 members of the County Council, including Republicans, voted to put the measure on the ballot.) Read the Publicola article today for a response (http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/one-question-for-king-county-re-metro-march-2014). For example, one point about the growth in Metro’s operating costs pointed out by the County Budget Director: Metro now operates bus service for Sound Transit – so of course its operating costs have grown.
Also don’t forget that 40% of funds from Prop 1 go to fund road and bridge maintenance and repair.
Yep, I saw that. I just thought the summary was easier for people to read. But it’s 100% accurate as far as I can tell. That fee already exists and it is $20 now if you look at RCW 82.80.140 as shown here http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.80.140
“(2)(a) A district that includes all the territory within the boundaries of the jurisdiction, or jurisdictions, establishing the district may impose by a majority vote of the governing board of the district up to twenty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in subsection (1) of this section…”
The actual text of Prop 1 that you link to shows the new result of RCW-82.80.140 and not the incremental change. And they’re raising it by $40 to make the total $60. They aren’t raising it by $60 to make the total $80.
“It would authorize the district to impose, for a period of ten years, a sales and use tax of 0.1% under RCW 82.14.0455 and an annual vehicle fee of sixty dollars ($60) per registered vehicle under RCW 82.80.140 with a twenty dollar ($20) rebate for low-income individuals.”
And either way, they’re only raising it by that much for some people as there is a $20 rebate for others.
It’s actually raising it by $40, not $60. And it’s only raising by $20 for low income car owners.
http://www.movekingcountynow.org/about.html
Editor: Not sure where the pro folks got their talking points, but here’s the actual text of Prop. 1.
If we hired non-union bus drivers we could keep the level of service without raising taxes. Bus drivers make BIG money without having much in the way of skills.