Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Find me a great city that lacks robust public transportation infrastructure.
I have no problem paying for a robust public transportation infrastructure, which is why I think it's great that the city and county already spend $600 million a year in transit and are planning on spending $1.8 billion in capital improvements (not including the Sound Transit work) in the next six years or so. It's important.
The issue is that our public transportation system isn't robust, it's a haphazardly designed patchwork of overcrowded routes and routes that have barely enough passengers to fill a minivan.
We need a better system than we currently have, but we aren't going to make it better by throwing enough money at it to keep them from having to make the choices that can move it from inefficient to robust.
I have no problem paying for a robust public transportation infrastructure, which is why I think it's great that the city and county already spend $600 million a year in transit and are planning on spending $1.8 billion in capital improvements (not including the Sound Transit work) in the next six years or so. It's important.
The issue is that our public transportation system isn't robust, it's a haphazardly designed patchwork of overcrowded routes and routes that have barely enough passengers to fill a minivan.
We need a better system than we currently have, but we aren't going to make it better by throwing enough money at it to keep them from having to make the choices that can move it from inefficient to robust.
We also aren't going to make it a better system by eliminating 1/6th of the bus service we have. Do you think that by reducing the amount of money Metro receives, so that they have to reduce service by 1/6th, that they will make the wisest choices, and make the system more efficient and robust?
We also aren't going to make it a better system by eliminating 1/6th of the bus service we have. Do you think that by reducing the amount of money Metro receives, so that they have to reduce service by 1/6th, that they will make the wisest choices, and make the system more efficient and robust?
IMO the answer very well could be yes. Passing Prop 1 will reward them for making poor choices and for being inefficient. That will encourage more poor choices, and more inefficiency. If there is a grain of conscientiousness at Metro, failing to pass prop 1 will send a message that it's time to look at controlling costs.
They really need to reduce the gap between the $1.70 per passenger mile cost for busses, vs. 37 cents for private cars. With the economics of scale of mass-anything, whether mass-transit, mass communications, or mass-production, those numbers should be the other way around. That a bus trip costs almost 5 times as much as a car trip is just absurd and unacceptable.
We also aren't going to make it a better system by eliminating 1/6th of the bus service we have. Do you think that by reducing the amount of money Metro receives, so that they have to reduce service by 1/6th, that they will make the wisest choices, and make the system more efficient and robust?
I'm not saying anything about reducing the $600 million in tax money that Metro already receives - I'm saying that we don't need to add these taxes on top of the revenue that they are already getting, and on top of the $1.8 billion that they have planned for capital improvements. They could just ask to extend the existing $20 tab fee and cut less than 17% of the service, but they decided to shoot for the moon instead.
Almost everyone out here is facing reduced buying power, flat wages, and increased costs for utilities and groceries. Asking households to pay an additional $130 a year on top of the money they are already giving to Metro shouldn't even be on the table. Metro and King County need to start making the difficult but necessary choices to make bus service more efficient.
The more money we have in our pockets, the more money we spend on goods and services, the more sales tax revenue King County generates, and the more money Metro has from the money they already get from sales taxes.
We also aren't going to make it a better system by eliminating 1/6th of the bus service we have. Do you think that by reducing the amount of money Metro receives, so that they have to reduce service by 1/6th, that they will make the wisest choices, and make the system more efficient and robust?
I'm not saying anything about reducing the $600 million in tax money that Metro already receives - I'm saying that we don't need to add these taxes on top of the revenue that they are already getting, and on top of the $1.8 billion that they have planned for capital improvements. They could just ask to extend the existing $20 tab fee and cut less than 17% of the service, but they decided to shoot for the moon instead.
Almost everyone out here is facing reduced buying power, flat wages, and increased costs for utilities and groceries. Asking households to pay an additional $130 a year on top of the money they are already giving to Metro shouldn't even be on the table. Metro and King County need to start making the difficult but necessary choices to make bus service more efficient.
The more money we have in our pockets, the more money we spend on goods and services, the more sales tax revenue King County generates, and the more money Metro has from the money they already get from sales taxes.
Keep in mind that the car tab portion of this proposal will cost the residents of King County $850 million over the next ten years, and the sales tax is an additional $660 million over what they are already paying.
And let's not forget that Metro announced that they collected $450 million in sales tax revenue in 2013, the most that they've ever received. They expect revenues of $470 million this year and $496 million next year. Just from property taxes.
So, yes, they can revamp the entire system without this tax increase.
I'm not saying anything about reducing the $600 million in tax money that Metro already receives - I'm saying that we don't need to add these taxes on top of the revenue that they are already getting, and on top of the $1.8 billion that they have planned for capital improvements. They could just ask to extend the existing $20 tab fee and cut less than 17% of the service, but they decided to shoot for the moon instead.
Almost everyone out here is facing reduced buying power, flat wages, and increased costs for utilities and groceries. Asking households to pay an additional $130 a year on top of the money they are already giving to Metro shouldn't even be on the table. Metro and King County need to start making the difficult but necessary choices to make bus service more efficient.
The more money we have in our pockets, the more money we spend on goods and services, the more sales tax revenue King County generates, and the more money Metro has from the money they already get from sales taxes.
Keep in mind that the car tab portion of this proposal will cost the residents of King County $850 million over the next ten years, and the sales tax is an additional $660 million over what they are already paying.
And let's not forget that Metro announced that they collected $450 million in sales tax revenue in 2013, the most that they've ever received. They expect revenues of $470 million this year and $496 million next year. Just from property taxes.
So, yes, they can revamp the entire system without this tax increase.
This was exactly my point earlier in the thread. Why the increase? When the fee is in danger of expiring they threaten with canceling a substantial part of their service if they don't get their massive increase. Why do they all of a sudden need this massive increase? Why should we keep throwing more and more money at them? Feels like a money grab to me. Guess what, we're not making more money in wages, so why do they get to claim more? Just because things need to be paid for doesn't mean they need to be swimming in it.
I wish voters had the gumption to hold them accountable for what they've done with the current funding structure before giving in to their demands for substantially more money.
The number of people B&M'ing about a $60 a year tab is outstanding. It amounts to a measly $5 a month - that is literally the cost of a single latte & muffin at Starbucks. Once. A. Month. Even at MINIMUM WAGE that is quite literally, one half of one hour a month's wages. (And if you are earning minimum wage, you likely qualify for the reduced tab, so its not even 1/2 an hour's wage a month) Jesus, you can just barely buy a single pint of beer at a bar these days for $5.
Seriously, that is peanuts. You probably WASTE well well more than $5 a week on various things. The whiners should be ashamed for displaying this level of mealy-mouthed moaning.
And the sales tax portion is 1/10th of 1 percent. For a $50 purchase at the store, that is a tax of...[drumroll please]...a NICKEL. I don't know what y'alls month purchases are that are subject to sales tax, but let's just throw a number at the wall - $1,000. The tax for which would be a whole dollar - or the price of a single copy of the Seattle Times. Dear God, how shall we survive!
So, for the monthly price of: (a) single Starbucks latte, (b) a single muffin, and (c) a single newspaper - we all get (1) avoiding massive bus service cuts AND (2) funding for roadway improvements & repairs.
Some people need to learn to sack up and not run around like a bunch of screaming 8 year olds. And there is no "its the principle that's the issue" here. Unless your principle is to be a miserly skinflint.
Death by 1000 cuts. Everyone is raising prices, everywhere taxes are being raised. $60 may not break the bank (though, for many it could, don't presume you know other's financial situation) but that's not the only increase people are seeing in their bills. Besides, since when was "you can afford it" ever a good excuse to take someone's money without reassuring them it's being properly used?
I don't live in Seattle, or Washington, for that matter, so I have no horse in this race (not yet, at least) and just reading the complaints to the bill I can see the real issue people are having with it isn't giving up money - it's whether or not that money is being spent properly. Everyone wants good roads and transportation but that doesn't always mean raising taxes, it could very well mean restructuring and reorganizing instead. Just throwing money at a governmental problem is like filling up your gas tank when it's low...it will mean you have gas to run your car but eventually you have to get an oil change or else the engine will seize. Heck...during that oil change the mechanic might discover a problem, fix it and find out it can run a lot longer on a tank of gas now.
I'll be interested to follow this thread. For me, the $60 added to the license cost is still very reasonable and low income folks will get a full 1/3 of this back as a rebate as explained in the initiative. Of course I would prefer it was less, but given the state of our transit system, including buses and roads etc., we have to do something. Especially since we pay no state income tax. Washington doesn't run any more efficiently or less efficiently than other states and so we have to get the money for our infrastructure somewhere. For the average person with one car, this is just slightly over $1 a week at $1.15, or $0.16/day. I put more than that in the various penny jars at the register each day. The benefits of this money are greatly needed if we want to retain the quality of life we moved, or stay, here for.
Don't forget, part of it is for the ferry system! If there were more public funding for the ferries, fares could come back down to a more reasonable level.
I'm all for social services and paying for the things we all use from time to time, but giving more money to Metro won't force them to get their financial house in order. I realize Metro will probably retaliate with service cuts, but something's gotta give. Plus, I think we already have enough regressive taxes in this state. I didn't realize Washington used to charge you for tabs based on the MSRP of your car, but that's actually a fairly sensible idea. A businessman driving a Mercedes can afford to, and should, pay more for tabs than a blue-collar guy driving a Ford.
Sounds like there are plenty of inefficiencies that could be addressed, too. My wife rides the 102 home from SoDo to Renton three days a week, and she says she's crammed in like a sardine and almost always has to stand. If other bus lines are running around practically empty, somebody needs to get on the ball and cut lines that aren't being used, while adding lines where there's high demand.
There seem to be a lot of missed revenue opportunities, too. When I lived in D.C. and you wanted to use a park-and-ride lot, you paid for the privilege. It blows my mind that you can park for free and get on the bus or the light rail. That's a huge untapped revenue source. And I know it's not Metro, but just another example of the transit inefficiency around here is how you can pretty much walk onto the light rail and never pay if you wanted to. It's totally on the honor system that you're going to tap your ORCA card. Put up some turnstiles that unlock when you tap your card, and I can almost guarantee you that revenue would increase. Plus, then they wouldn't have to pay the salaries of all those "Fare Enforcement" people who randomly check your card after you get on the train.
And I agree with the "death by a thousand cuts" comment earlier. My wife hasn't gotten a raise in the four years she's been at her company (and I'm a freelancer, so there's no such thing as a raise for me), yet the cost of living continues to go up and up and up. Yeah, the new tax may amount to only a few cents a day, but Metro isn't the only one expecting a few more cents a day from me. The cumulative effect is getting to be back-breaking. Everyone else has to tighten their belts. Metro can, too -- at least until they can show that they're using our tax dollars efficiently and responsibly.
Not that any of this matters. I'm sure the measure will pass. Too many people around here have never met a new tax they didn't like.
Last edited by Adrian71; 04-15-2014 at 05:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
