Metro update: County leaders eye ‘Plan B’ & announce labor deal

King County leaders presented an update this morning on the funding challenges that could result in major Metro Transit cuts (detailed two weeks ago). If the Legislature doesn’t come up with a “balanced” transportation package, they say, they’ll urge local leaders to move ahead with what’s becoming known as “Plan B” – one funding option involving a car-tab-tax hike. And they also announced a labor agreement that they say can save some money, up to $12 million. Here’s the county release with full details.

Marty November 21, 2013 (2:11 pm)

Car tab hike? I thought we voted against that…

birdgeek November 21, 2013 (2:57 pm)

A $20 Congestion Reduction fee is in effect now, due to run out May 2014 (aka: car tab fee).

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

Metro needs a dedicated funding source that isn’t dependent on the economy/sales tax (as it currently is). A renewal of–or even increase in– this “car tab hike” would be a step in the right direction. It would also keep people from getting off buses and back into their cars if/when Metro is forced to reduce service (which would then be the opposite of “congestion reduction”. Get it?)

Ms. Sparkles November 21, 2013 (3:22 pm)

I’m all for maintaining / increasing the car tab congestion fee, but we also should add a “transit use” fee to building permits for multi-occupant buildings using the “transit zone” areas to justify building with little or no parking. The ship has sailed on City Counsel “Urban Villages” but that doesn’t mean we can pressure them to change premit fee to help mitigate the impact on transit

Frugal WS November 21, 2013 (7:57 pm)

Ms. Sparkles, I’m fully supportive of your idea to add “transit use” fees to all multi-occupant buildings going in without much – or any – parking. Adding parking to buildings costs money; why should neighborhoods bear that cost rather than developers? I strongly feel that Seattle’s city council has put the cart before the horse in allowing parking-free residential construction of such density to occur. This city is well behind the times when it comes to truly “rapid” transit for folks who seek alternatives to car commuting. Build the public transit (preferably OFF THE SAME STREETS CROWDED BY CARS), then follow up with the increased density buildings. Look at Portland’s studies: almost 2/3 of people living in parking-free buildings own cars.

Sorry, comment time is over.