Absentee ballots have arrived in the mail for this month’s transit tax vote. Our last post on it drew enough comments that it’s worth noting three new stories in our news partner The Seattle Times.
First, the Times rather surprisingly opposed the tax – which was supported by a unanimous King County Council and by many area leaders – in an editorial over the weekend, saying Metro needs to do more to cut costs before voters pass a $60 car tab fee and a sales-tax increase.
The pattern is clear. As in previous rounds of asking taxpayers for more money, Metro sees its shortfall as a revenue problem, rather than thoroughly confronting its well-documented unsustainably high operating costs.
As to Metro’s announcement that without the money it will have to slash bus service by 17 percent:
If voters turn down Proposition 1, King County threatens a round of devastating bus-service cuts, many on popular routes including those carrying students to college. County and Metro leadership should not let that happen.
The threat ignores other options, including further fare increases and ever tighter control of administrative costs and capital expenses.
It’s worth remembering that the tax is nobody’s first choice for funding buses and other needs, but is a cobbled together Plan B after the state Legislature failed to act before going home last month.
Second, the Times today has a story out of the Eastside, where the Kirkland City Council voted 6-1 in favor of Proposition 1, but Belleuve business leaders opposed it.
A thumbs-up from the Kirkland City Council and a thumbs-down from the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce speak to the important role suburban voters could play in the fate of Metro’s Proposition 1 on the April 22 ballot.
Finally, the Times today posted the results of its survey on full Metro buses passing by waiting riders.
From 266 reader reports:
If you’re traveling north or south, you’ve got a greater chance of being passed up. Readers reported a total of 205 pass-ups, or about 77 percent of the total, on routes heading north or south.
The top time to get passed up? About 35 percent of pass-ups came during the afternoon rush between 5 and 6 p.m.
Route 40 might be the most crowded bus in Seattle.
If you can believe a straw poll that the Seattle Times had on the internet this measure will fail in a big way. I’m with the can’t get blood from a turnip crowd. Parks will come at us next with wanting more money. Its getting too hard to keep up. I have two kids in college, costs there totally out of control.
I don’t have the money to pay any more increases in fees, taxes, licenses, tolls, red light cameras, school speed cameras, assessments, fares, surcharges, or the higher liquor costs from privatization.
I am tapped out, no blood in this turnip. I’d like to pull in $100k a year with great benefits, but I don’t have a job at Metro.
Make do or do without, I am getting by cutting my expenses to practically nothing. Is it too much to ask Metro to do the same?
@aesob If you want good quality of life then you should be willing to pay more that the 29% of the cost of providing the service.
Folks in Seattle need to learn to pack into a bus. Often the so called full buses have plenty of room if passive-aggressive passengers standing near the back would bunch up.
@ConcernedCitizen, I could take an earlier bus, and sometimes do depending on my schedule, but if I want to spend quality morning time with my family before they head off to school, etc., it’s the 8:00 bus for me. Quality of life. My quality is going to go down if getting a bus in to downtown is made more difficult.
Also, Great story, I can’t stand people who passive-aggressively, needlessly, or selfishly take up two seats.
Thanks for sharing Tim. My point was their list of priorities for cutting service was a much of a farce as mine. I’ve experienced nothing but decline in Metro service while the costs keep going up.
Weft, I could care less about your interpretation. I just copied those bullet points for those that don’t want to spend an hour looking for them on Metro’s impossible-to-navigate website.
Already voted no. We need better roads first and Metro must learn efficiency and not use scare tactics to avoid it.
Tim, there seems to be a joke at your link so I fixed it:
Pri 1 – Cut the service most used by the poor
Pri 2 – Increase salaries
Pri 3 – Find a red light to run or a centerline to cross.
Pri 4 – Lather, rinse, repeat.
Besides, the taxes are too regressive. The people taking the bus into downtown make more money on average than those paying the majority of the tax.
aesob, any thought to taking an earlier # 77 to avoid this? As a commuter bus they run fairly frequently. I am on the first run of the day and have no problem finding a seat. Sometimes I have to share a seat which a lot people think is reserved for their bag of crap. Best line I heard on the bus recently was when your typical passive aggressive bus rider was sitting on the isle seat with their bag of crap occupying the window seat. In walks the smelly homeless guy who asks ” did you pay for two seats” and proceeds to plop down next to the passive aggressive Seattle bus rider. Karma, it is a bitch.
I have to agree with Bob. The more tax money they get the more they are going to waste. I do not believe they need a union for what they do. Nonunion drivers would be just as skillful or more so and a competitive rate would lower the cost of ridership.
Let’s not spin or assume how people think. Just because I do not support simply raising taxes over trying to improve efficiency and cut costs, doesn’t mean I am anti-bus. I fully support public transportation, but I also support accountability for how the programs are run. No person can honestly say that raising prices or simply saying “we just need more money” is the only option. Again, I don’t want to see routes eliminated, but I also don’t want to blindly pay more. Saying its just a small increase is crap because a lot of small increases over years add up.
Look at the lottery. It was supposed to be the end all funding mechanism for schools. What happened? Oh yeah, the politicians starting pulling the money for use on their pet projects and other re-election focused BS. Every single year, they pull more from the funds, and then we debate how the schools need more money. If money collected that was supposed to be for schools actually all went to schools, we would be a lot better off.
The proponents simply refuse to talk about bus drivers being overpaid. They have no response because there is no legitimate response. The drivers’ union is holding everybody hostage and it’s time we call them out on it.
Click the link; there are several paragraphs that explain what each of those points mean. In this case, performance is not simply a synonym for ridership.
I think you completely glossed over the proposed changes. Yes, 66, 67, 68 are being deleted, but they are being replaced by service that (in terms of routing in Maple Leaf and UW) are equivalent or better.
Also, you should read up on why the UPASS was mandated: The cost kept going up because parking revenue kept going down. By forcing all students to pay for it, the cost is distributed and thus kept low (and encourages ridership to some extent).
@5
The term performance in this context is vague enough to be meaningless. I’m going to assume that it’s a stand-in for “ridership”. I can attest that the 67 and 68 have very high ridership during commute periods. As for non-commute periods, I’m sure ridership is much lower, but that’s true for most routes that don’t move people around the downtown area.
In any event, I take that as meaning that fixed sources of income like the mandated UPASS purchases are *not* considered in the performance metric. I wonder if the impending construction of the light rail — years after current students will be able to use it — is also factoring into the deletion of these routes.
Ultimately, I would hope that the UW student body weigh a reversal of their decision to mandate UPASS purchases if this measure fails to pass. There must be some degree of leverage there.
This morning the 77 passed me by, completely full, while about 20 people waited at the bus stop. That bus is completely full most mornings. Metro service has become tighter and tighter over the last few years, and for anyone else like Mr. Paine (no common sense?) and MLbob complaining about a small tax increase to support it, think about how much more congested the roads will be as displaced bus riders are forced to drive their cars. I love taking the bus as it’s easy, but if it can’t be reliable, I will have to turn to driving myself. I’m supporting the transit tax, and I encourage anyone else who rides the bus or drives on the road to do the same.
Priority 1: Cut lowest-performing service
Priority 2: Restructure a network
Priority 3: Cut the next lowest-performing service
Priority 4: Cut the lowest-performing service in areas below their target levels
Source
I’ve been a little irritated by the constant threats to eliminate Northside routes to the University of Washington. What is the logic of the routes chosen? Is it ridership density? Does the fact that UW students are obligated to pay for UPASSes whether they use it or not count into this calculation?
Cutting services without addressing the high operating costs due to unions and pensions while asking the public to shoulder more of the burden will run us right the same road as Greece. How did that end up working??!!
I don’t like private industry unions, but they are free to operate as they choose. It’s the public sector unions that are a complete scheme.
Here’s a reason to vote no – the Metro bus drivers have lower skills than most Seattle voters but make more money than most Seattle voters. Until they bring their pay into line, they don’t deserve more money from Seattle voters.
That’s just shocking. Allow Slog to explain:
Meanwhile, STB has a new post on why to vote yes.