24 Replies to "Big bus cuts vs. $20 fee: County sets 3 public hearings"

• ? June 28, 2011 (2:20 pm)

  I’m sorry it might be in there somewhere just wondering why they don’t raise the bus fees as opposed to the the car tax?

• Dizzle June 28, 2011 (2:36 pm)

  See the original WSB article regarding raising the bus fee. What I find ironic is how hard people fight to not have to pay an extra $.055 cents per day to cover the $20/year to help metro and those that do not have the luxury of their own vehicle. Metro & public transit will only get better if we as community support it by using it regularly and paying the extra $20. If you don’t like paying the extra tab fees, just stop driving and ride the metro!!

• clark5080 June 28, 2011 (2:47 pm)

  I heard a stat today that in the last few years that we have approved taxes to up the number of service hours and so far we have only seen about 25% of what was promised. Until the unions do something substantial other than not take cost of living raises there is no reason for a yes vote. I haven’t had a raise in 4 years of any kind and for the past 2years and another three years in the future I am down 15%. But i still have a job so I am thankful for that.

• wsguy June 28, 2011 (3:02 pm)

  What I find ironic is how hard people fight to get other people to pay for services they want and use. If you don’t want to pay the fare increases it will take to retain the service then be willing to have a longer bus ride with more stops.

  If metro will only get better by spending more money on it then logically if we just kept throwing more and more $$$ to them they would keep exponentially improving right?

  I am anything but a conservative but even I am getting to the point when there has to be other solutions to issues than just raising fees and taxes and throwing money at a problem.

  Metro needs to pay a larger share of it’s expenses. If the current level of service is not sustainable then a combination of reduced service and higher fees would solve the problem.

• Gene June 28, 2011 (3:35 pm)

  As a mixed mode transportation user (primarily bus, but I do use a car sometimes), I fully support an increase to car tabs. They are cheap, and those of us who drive, even infrequently, are pretty heavily subsidized by others (including in detrimental health effects from pollution). $20/year more on car tabs still makes them cheap. Having said that, making sure metro is using money wisely too is essential.

• bs June 28, 2011 (3:47 pm)

  For starters, Maybe they should just start enforcing the link fairs. After a recent Sounders game, I sat and watched at least 60 people pile on to the link without tickets. And this was just on the first train….

• Jmk June 28, 2011 (4:02 pm)

  I just love how my $30 car tab fee was $194 for my Honda odyssey. Our gas tax is high but if you use more fuel you pay to use the system. I’m fine with that.

  Why make a non metro user pay for a system they don’t use? Why not cut our excesses in the systems and pass along the fees to the users of that system?

• One More Opinion June 28, 2011 (4:02 pm)

  As someone pointed out to me in the last thread about this, Link is a different revenue stream (not that the current “honor system” makes any more sense but that’s another rant I’ll save for later). I just read the press release from Metro…for all of you that keep rallying on the “up the fares” mantra, fares have been raised 80% in the past few years. Keep pushing them up and it pushes ridership even lower. Your $20 annual car tab (really?) increase will turn into $100 increase instead. I’ll happily pay the increase to keep the fares where they are…small sacrifice for sure.

• Todd June 28, 2011 (4:09 pm)

  I’m not sure, but if the mayor and others have their way and we all stop driving cars in favor of riding buses and bicycles, where is all of the money going to come from? If the bus system needs to be subsidized by cars, then when fewer cars are on the road will it cost them even more? Also, since the state is in a massive budget crunch and they need to raise the gasoline tax to increase revenue, what happens when the majority of people are using extremely fuel-efficient and/or electric cars? Revenue will dry up unless there is a realistic way of filling the gap.

• smokeycretin9 June 28, 2011 (4:30 pm)

  Sooo, I dont ride the bus because there is already cut backs in the service and times that I would need the bus, so I have to pay for the shortcomings of a service I cant use?

  Sounds like they are taking from the rich and giving to the poor or “making” us ride the stink mobile.

• Pam June 28, 2011 (4:53 pm)

  As a regular bus rider, i would not mind paying more for my trips. I am originally from the UK, and feel that Metro could increase revenue by getting rid of the ride free zone, and as in the UK not giving out transfers. In the UK everytime you get on a bus you pay again.

• Cascadianone June 28, 2011 (5:05 pm)

  Todd, I made the same point last go-around. People who support this seem to be more anti-car than they are pro-bus. The very nature of the tabs proposal is divisive in addition to being a poor funding solution… *sigh* What great leaders we have…

• Stevie June 28, 2011 (5:58 pm)

  I also use both bus and car to get to and from work and I think it’s definitely worth the $20 fee to keep the level of service. As someone pointed out on a earlier thread, if we cut service it will just be more cars on the road and we already have a rough time getting in and out of W Seattle. Yes to the $20 fee!

• metrognome June 28, 2011 (6:50 pm)

  CascadianOne — so what would your funding solution be? This fee has a built-in 2 yr expiration date. Metro’s primary funding source is sales tax; that really doesn’t make much sense either.

  clark5080 — I bet if you had listened to the whole story you would have found out that the Transit Now initiative was funded by sales tax; since sales tax collections are down due the economy, the projected revenue for Metro is down. It’s not as if Metro collected the money and then didn’t spend it on the improvements, which is what you seem to be implying.

  Non-bus-riders benefit from the bus system as well; if all those people on that articulated bus were driving their cars instead, you would easily burn $20 in gas over a year while idling at stop lights and in even bigger traffic jams. You’d have more trouble finding parking as well.

• wsjeep June 28, 2011 (7:26 pm)

  I drive a car and I am all for the $20 fee increase. Actually I’m all for state income tax.

• Recall McGinn June 28, 2011 (7:28 pm)

  A couple of suggestions, eliminate the ride free zone and all riders should pay the fare when they get on.

  That said, I think a $20 increase in tabs is reasonable. The more people that ride the bus, the less single car riders on the road.

  And, eliminating the 54 route is idiotic.

• wsguy June 28, 2011 (7:32 pm)

  metrognome –

  I have trouble believing that politicians are going to abandon a revenue stream once it has been established. It took an initiative last time to get rid of the excessive car tab fees. If fees are allowed on tabs again they will just keep piling on if history is any guide.

• 2sides2everyissue June 28, 2011 (8:44 pm)

  I agree with ‘wsguy’. There are always 2 sides – as a car driver I have a hard time getting around the buses – they are arcane, slow, stinky and clog the roadways. I question whether 50 extra cars on the road would be as slow as these things. While I see their value for urban transportation (would much rather have lightrail) and jobs in the area I, myself, have not ridden one in 22 years because they aren’t efficient and in my opinion don’t keep up with the times. It can take 3 buses just to get to Capitol Hill which is 5 miles away! Dumb. I don’t agree with the $20 fee because really when does the taxing in this economy end? It’s the easy grab to the citizens while Metro continues to subsidize passes for the riders. Everything about this ‘crunch’ is falling on our backs and its only going to get worse. Notice inflation anyone? I’ll meet them in the middle – how about a $10 tab fee increase and up the fares? Otherwise I vote no.

• Cascadianone June 28, 2011 (8:50 pm)

  Metrognome, glad you asked:

  The simple answer to a complex question is: Property tax, income tax and increased rider fees.

  Riding the bus is much less expensive than operating a car given current gas prices, albeit with some serious trade-offs. If the price of operating my car goes up, I don’t petition bus riders for a payout, I dig into my wallet. If riders NEED metro buses, they may have to pay more- maybe even a lot more- to keep them until other financing can be put into place. And that financing SHOULD be put into place, it just needs to come from a different, stable source.

  But there comes a point in an economic contraction when exceptional measures must be taken. If serious route cuts are in the offing even with increased rider fees, cuts which would hamper people’s ability to go to work or out shopping, then government has an excellent case to do whatever it takes to make sure they still can. Everything should be on the table to fund Metro in that case- including realizing that Metro might not BE fundable and transitioning to another system.

  On the broader topic of taxation, I think that taxes on real property and income are the only fair or sensible taxes. Sales taxes disprortionately punish the middle class and the poor and, in times of economic hardship, everyone tightens their belt and revenues fall dramatically while the wealthiest few keep getting richer. Going after other middle and lower class sectors for bus money doesn’t make any economic sense, but it does fulfill dire social planning objectives. Anyway, Bill Gates Sr. already made my point for me about needing income taxes, he just doesn’t realize the sales and licensing taxes need to go bye bye when we do it.

  On the broader topic of mass transit, I’ve been beating the drum for grade-seperated electric rail for some time now. It will be amazingly expensive, but infrastructural improvements of this kind are economically-beneficial in the long term. Buses have a number of problems that make them far less attractive than a hypothetical New York or D.C.-style subway, most of those problems because they travel the same roads as cars.

  Drivers are already being punished harshly by this economy- and some of us simplly cannot utilize public transit as it is for various reasons (I am among this number). Open up the financial section of a newpaper when quartlerly profits are discussed and you will see who I think should really be footing the bill for Metro. Metro buses are hauling their cash flow and workforce to them each day while we all fight each other! LOL.

• Highland Parker June 29, 2011 (9:04 am)

  1) Start enforcing fares (especially on Link)
  2) Up the tabs
  3) Realize if you up fares, people will drive (it currently costs $10 each day to ride, or $8+ gas to park downtown) causing CONGESTION and KILLING OUR ENVIRONMENT!
  4) DO NOT CUT SERVICE!!!
  5) Taxes are high enough… I wish more people focus on HOW OUR MONEY IS SPENT

  People also need to realize that this is about more than “fewer stops”, it is about sustaining our environment by offering environmentally friendly alternatives to DRIVING TO WORK. Riding the bus is not my ideal way to get to work… but carpooling means Seattle will be here for my children, and theirs as well.

  AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
  Start making the government more accountable for their spending. I’d easily shell over another $20 to auditing our current spending… including those USELESS signs they’ve tacked all over telling us we’ll be late for work… as if the line of cars wasn’t an indicator… or those UBER USEFUL “how many parking spots” signs. Really? What drunkard decided that was a good idea?

• Joe June 29, 2011 (9:05 am)

  what do you mean IF the 20 dollar fee kicks in????it has already kicked in and I’ve already paid it when I got my tabs.

  • WSB June 29, 2011 (9:13 am)

    Joe – that is the city’s new $20 “transportation benefit district” fee. This would be an additional $20 levied on the part of the county. – TR

• Gene June 29, 2011 (10:09 am)

  I’d like to repeat: Drivers do not pay the full cost of the upkeep on the roads, the health damages from the pollution, the toxic runoff to that goes into the Puget Sound, etc. I’d be happy for metro to fully pay its own way when we stop subsidizing cars with our wallets and our health. I’m not anti-car, I’m anti-subsidy.
  .
  What I’d really like is for all of these costs to be much more transparent, so that people who drive heavily don’t always whine when part of their (our – I’m a driver as well) government subsidy goes away (even “temporarily”)…

• clark5080 June 29, 2011 (5:23 pm)

  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2015464637_edit30cartabs.html

Sorry, comment time is over.