We are currently able to opt-out of paying an additional fee for the State parks, so when I met Representative Clibburn in April, I suggested that we be allowed to opt into paying the MVET RTA portion. Someone would actually have to ask the MVET payer if this is something they would like to do as opposed to something they don’t want to do as I understand is the case with the Parks tax.

I’ll keep it in mind for the next session in Olympia in 2010.

Tim

You’re familiar with the cuts coming to Metro. You know those cuts won’t use the same distribution method – 60% of those cuts will come from Seattle. Then, when sales tax revenue rebounds, only 20% of the returned hours will come back.

In that scenario, and for the last decade, Metro has become less cost effective every time new hours are added. I know the numbers, I know that adding service hours in East King leads to less than average productivity. The mechanics of which routes get service are secondary – nearly all Seattle routes get better productivity metrics than nearly all Eastside routes.

Let me be more clear about my point. My point is that, with any program that gets some public money, there is a finite amount of resources and how it gets shared out is subject to many, many considerations. I mentioned the urban vs. non-urban “argument”, but I don’t think that’s a true “argument” – you never hear an actual legislator making the distinction, because they understand that deciding what to fund or not to fund is not so simplistic. That distinction just muddies the issue. Funding is a complex balancing of needs & priorities.

So the only point I wanted to make was whether tying transit funding to sales tax revenue is a good idea or not in light of the particular conundrum for transit, i.e. slow economy/high gas prices [less sales tax revenue] = more people relying on transit [more resources needed]. This is a question all transit agencies face in common, no matter where they are located. The problem is, I don’t know what would work better.

there is no new service subsidy to allocate! that is all that 40-40-20 is for. You mention 156th Avenue NE; Route 245 serves it and attracts standees in the peak periods

I don’t see 156th during the day but I do see 148th. Peak traffic is of course standing room only. Mid-day however the buses are running empty. Part of the problem with 40/40/20 is it forces ridership runs just in the name of increased service hours. We don’t have the buses to increase peak capacity and, in my opinion far to little has been done with things like the van pool to use the money where the demand is. Of course with 148th and 156th north of 20th we have SR 520 which is only a 1/4 mile from either corridor and a max 3/8th of a mile between flyer stops.

The proposed Bellevue “Rapid Ride” appears to be another case of wasted money just because it needs to be spent. I can understand the need for frequent connections from Crossroads to downtown Bellevue but there is nothing rapid about buses on NE 8th. Crossroads to Microsoft might warrant more service too but connecting Bellevue Transit Center to Overlake via Crossroads and calling it “Rapid Ride” is an oxymoron.

The legislature had many opportunities to fix the MVET valuations (I remember people complaining back in the early 80′s) but chose not to do so until after I-695 and I-776.

Unfortunately the MVET revenue was never replaced with another revenue source which has had predictable impacts on everything from the ferry system, to transit funding, to street and sidewalk improvements, to local government funding.

We really need to have an honest discussion of taxes, the role of government, etc. in this state. However almost no elected officials seem willing to have that discussion which means the anti-tax and anti-government types along with the watch salesman from Mukelteo are setting the state fiscal policy.

I’m not exactly sure what kind of authority the county has for bond measures, what kinds of limits are in place, or if they could be used for transit related funding.

The 66/67 (the route I ride the most) is a bit less crowded than it was a year ago but it still is a pretty high ridership route. Thankfully it doesn’t get nearly as crazy as some other routes. I’ve never had a coach pass me up because it was too full for instance.

Mike B,
South does not equal rural; it includes the suburban cities of Renton, Kent, Auburn, Federal Way, DesMoines, SeaTac, Burien, and Tukwila. rural areas include Vashon and area east of the urban growth line except for the urban islands such as Enumclaw, Duval, and North Bend. south King County cities include several downtown areas that developed before WWII and are walkable and where folks want to ride transit. ridership is growing fastest in that subarea.

We’d definitely need legislative action to even vote for an MVET.

But the larger picture is the crash of the world oil economy. What emerges from the rubble isn’t going to look anything like what we have today. Back in the late 60s the military-industrial state that won WW II finally crashed, and when the dust settled entire cities, like Pittsburgh, had effectively disappeared.

You want a cash cow? Look at the military budget- equal this year to what the rest of the world combined will spend on armies and war. Not ready to bell the cat? Prepare to live with the consequences.

Now, it might be a good thing to twiddle endlessly with the 13 layers of government that you need to change to provide a few more cents for buses- but it won’t be a great thing. It may be a good thing- for all I know, it may be essential- to get to know your neighbors and representatives in public hearings and candidate forums, but it’s not how public transit gets built in countries like France and Germany.

The last time I looked at a King County tax assessment, 22% was going to roads. That’s a heap of bucks, and we already have enough roads. And, unlike gas taxes or MVET, the property tax revenue stream increases when transit is successful.

Seattle needs to fund some transit improvements in the city for city residents. Between the tax exemptions and levies, city residents pay hundreds of millions each year for the Port of Seattle. It would not be unrealistic to revamp that structure a little and build some transit with some of the money.

I think transit systems always fight the same battles. We always hear that “out-state” legislators don’t want to spend a lot of money on urban transit systems because their constituents don’t see any direct benefit. I think the answer to that argument is twofold: One, the same could be said about urban-specific roadway spending; and two, most of the state’s tax base comes from the two urban areas, so it’s in everyone’s interest to keep the economic development/moving people to jobs going in the urban areas. It’s really a question about educating people, not just on the benefits of transit but the enormous hidden costs and subsidies behind roads.

I-695 didn’t remove MVET taxes, it just says you have to ask to impose them. And as we have seen in the previous ST2 package, a fair allocation for a good cause will pass. The nice thing is that MVET is a somewhat progressive tax, in that if you are poor you buy cheaper cars, and pay less. For instance my 82 VW pays the minimum which I think is around $5. What should also be added is a base vehicle tax based on weight. Heavier trucks do more damage, should pay more. Next is a parking tax, and parking lot tax, so that if you drive, you pay for the privilege.

Next I’d like, ok that’s too strong a word, but would prefer a bicycle sales tax to fund bicycle improvements. It’s easier to administer than a bicycle license tax.

And yes, if the state constitution could be amended, I’d put a tax on gasoline and diesel to fund mass transit and the ferries. It’s a tough sell though.

I suspect the county could put a transit levy on the ballot, but I’m not sure. Again, this is a matter of what the state government allows. The property tax for the ferry district is small.

I also believe Sound Transit may collect a small employer tax.

40-40-20 certainly causes Metro significant grief. I’d imagine you know a lot more about the East subarea than I do, but as I understand it, service productivity is dramatically higher in the North/West subarea. When 40-40-20 sends a coach down 156th with 8 passengers per revenue hour when it could be picking up 30 in Seattle, it’s a problem. Non-40-40-20 reallocation could likely earn Metro a reduction of several dollars per operating hour.