West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

1. hooper1961
   Member Profile

   why didn't any of the users at the public meeting state they would be willing to pay more in fare's to maintain service? many people spoke out in favor of a car tab tax, essentially making someone else pay for their service!

   Posted 10 months ago #         

2. KBear
   Member Profile

   Here we go again...

   Posted 10 months ago #         

3. hooper1961
   Member Profile

   what?

   Posted 10 months ago #         

4. KBear
   Member Profile

   Hooper, it's OUR bus service. It's part of OUR transportation infrastructure, ALL of which is publicly subsidized in one way or another. It is not possible to have a civilized society in which each citizen pays directly for only the services he or she uses. By the way, "fares" is plural, not possessive.

   Posted 10 months ago #         

5. flowerpetal
   Member Profile

   

   The OP supposes that bus riders do not own cars it seems. And of course we do, many of us. Commuters make up a huge share of riders on Metro who choose to ride the bus because it is the better alternative to get to a job every day.

   Posted 10 months ago #         

6. DP
   Member Profile

   

   What's wrong with people saying: "Public transit is a social good and we want to subsidize it?"

   It's no surprise that bus riders support a hike in car tab fees — please don't tell me you're surprised by this, Hooper — but I think you will find some car commuters who are happy to shell out for bus service as well. After all, more people on buses means an easier commute for everyone.

   Personally, I'd prefer that oil companies subsidize public transit service out of their deep pockets. But still, more people on buses means less money in oil executives' pockets, so at least there's that.

   Yes my friends, it turns out that even as simple an act as riding the bus can be a way of stickin' it to the Man.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-VB5xb6KM&feature=related

   Posted 10 months ago #         

7. Ken
   Member Profile

   

   I don't ride the bus at all but I am willing to pay more to keep it running. Of course I don't own an RV, trailer or a car from the 21st century either.

   Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society.
   -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr

   Posted 10 months ago #         

8. Jiggers
   Member Profile

   

   DP..You are always going to have opposition like with Nickelsville.

   Posted 10 months ago #         

9. mightymo
   Member Profile

   Metro riders already have been increasingly paying their share of the cost. Fares have gone up over the last 5-10 years at a much higher rate than gas prices and similar costs for car-only folks. The fares are already high enough that the round-trip cost is more than the cost of driving to and from work, and for those who don't work downtown, parking costs aren't part of the equation.

   Posted 10 months ago #         

10. redblack
    Member Profile

    

    what you guys said. besides, with an aging bus fleet and the impending launch of BuRT, metro needs cash to maintain and improve what they have. which, unfortunately, is the only transit we'll see for years. possibly decades.

    you know, until someone has the guts or vision to form a real transit authority - with its own revenue stream - which will build a countywide grade-separated transit network that will connect to a metropolitan train system that connects to a regional train system that connects to a national train system with its own rights-of-way.

    nope. we can't even talk about it, let alone pay for it.

    so, yeah, hooper. until my pie-in-the-sky vision is realized, tax me. i like it. more people on buses, fewer people in cars. the more people get out of their cars and onto metro, the more people will pay fares.

    and as metrognome could elaborate on, fares have never paid for metro. (kind of like how car tabs only pay for about 10% of roads funding. thanks, tim eyman.) they rely on other city and county funds.

    but it just goes to show you that roads - and the transit thereon - are the most expensive and least cost-effective transportation model. unfortunately, we're stuck with that model - until we get smarter.

    Posted 10 months ago #         

11. metrognome
    Member Profile

    huh? did I hear someone calling my name?

    Fares (i.e. cash and passes) have pretty much always paid 22 - 25% of Metro's *operating expenses.* This goes back to when Metro was an independent agency, prior to the county takeover. Prior to I-695, Metro's primary funding source was the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. When Eastern WA voters took that option away by passing 695 (I believe that KC voters have never approved an Eyman initiative dealing with this and related issues), Metro had to make serious cuts (for example, Rt 22 used to run to midnight and on Sundays.)

    The state legislature approved an increase in the amount of sales tax revenue collected in KC that could be dedicated to Metro and voters approved this increase (I believe some also goes to capital expenses which also receive a great deal of federal $$.) With the voter-approved Transit Now, which includes RapidRide, Metro has reached its sales tax limit. I believe Sound Transit also receives some sales tax money as well as some MVET money (which was approved by voters in Puget Sound and which Eyman tried to use the voters east of the mtns to overturn, despite his frequent mantra that the will of the voters should be *never* be challenged.)

    redblack, your desire for a transit system is laudable; Seattle had its chance 40 years ago and blew it. It takes decades and billyuns and billyuns to build that kind of system, which is difficult to do in an existing urban environment that was built around cars with the kind of challenging topography we have. And I have yet to have anyone offer a cogent reason why we should spend that kind of money. Sound Transit is building the kind of regional system you are talking about, but it will take at least 50 years to get to the point you are talking about. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither is a regional transportation system.

    For anyone who is interested in Metro funding and history details, there is plenty of info on their website:

    http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/metro.html

    Anyone interested in transit funding, planning and operations in general should visit the American Public Transportation Ass'n website or the Federal Transit Administration website. History of this state's initiatives is available on the WA sec'y of state website or on the Municipal Research and Services Center website.

    Posted 10 months ago #         

12. metrognome
    Member Profile

    so, hooper, using your way of thinking, I as a single person with no children, should start voting against school funding ballot measures and insist that people who have chosen to have children should pick up the slack and pay their fair share.

    (before the screaming begins, I have voted for every school issue that has been on the ballot and will likely continue to do so; I am merely raising this as a comparable funding issue.)

    Posted 10 months ago #         

13. redblack
    Member Profile

    

    thanks for the correction, metrognome.

    the bottom line is that the MVET is a necessary revenue source, especially in urban areas. we need to bring it back to king county.

    (and yes, hooper, we need to have a more reflexive and fair valuation model for determining MVET. maybe based on a carfax report?)

    if we had that revenue stream, building better transit - and keeping metro on the road - would be a lot less painful and would happen a lot quicker.

    heck, look at what WSDOT can do when properly funded. the new 99 is pretty damned impressive so far.

    Posted 10 months ago #         

14. miws
    Member Profile

    

    So, is this just another drive-by by Hoop?

    Mike

    Posted 10 months ago #         

15. kootchman
    Member Profile

    redblack.... you have a good point. I have to run all over the city during a work day. Public transit helps bring down the congestion. My question is though, is surface transit really the infrastructure we need? I hear no serious discussion about is it necessary to commute to a cubicle every day? I would be supportive of a $25 tab tax to audit all downtown offices and see how much transit could be replaced by telephony strategies. I was just working on a project in Oklahoma, with a firm that had an office in Vancouver WA where the design work was being finalized...because the Kansas City office was too busy...and collaborated with 12 other companies in 9 states. Are we investing in the "right" technology/infrastructure? I have a suspicion that a lot of commuting to and from work can be shifted to telephony strategies. Just a thought.

    Posted 10 months ago #         

16. kootchman
    Member Profile

    If your corporate control needs are so high that you have to "see" your laboring minions...and your office creates the transit load... pony up. Want to avoid the "commuter tax" or reduce it.... then reduce your commuter audit rating to a lower score. Why be so invested in 20th century development models?

    Posted 10 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.