Comments on: Action in Congress http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/10/action-in-congress/ Transit in the Greater Seattle Area Fri, 25 May 2012 14:11:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tony http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/10/action-in-congress/#comment-49428 Tony Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:39:35 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5592#comment-49428 Frankly, the occasional budget crisis is not necessarily a bad thing for government. It all depends on how our leaders respond. It is possible that this budget crisis could create the political cover necessary to cut back unproductive routes that really should not exist at all. Any route is hard to cut politically, but if the leaders can say "We had no choice, there was no money", that argument can trump the objections. Then, when revenue returns, that revenue does not have to go back to those routes that were cut in the "crisis" (that should have been cut on principle anyway). The revenue can instead go to the most productive routes and we end up with a more efficient allocation of resources that would have been difficult to arrive at without the "crisis". Of course, our leaders could respond like short-sighted cowards and cut routes "equally", then when revenue returns, instead of restoring the money "equally", they allocate it based on other agendas. Given the makeup of the King County Council, unfortunately, I suspect the latter is more likely. Thus, if we had wise and courageous leaders, I would be opposed to Uncle Sam stepping in to "save the day" since it could give us the chance to do some necessary house cleaning. And frankly, even if we have weak leadership, I don't want Obama to come save the day. Metro is running an unsustainable operation. It needs to change. I'm not even opposed to letting Metro crumble as an organization if necessary. The sooner Metro folds, the sooner we can consolidate it with a competently run organization like ST or the City of Seattle.
Frankly, the occasional budget crisis is not necessarily a bad thing for government. It all depends on how our leaders respond. It is possible that this budget crisis could create the political cover necessary to cut back unproductive routes that really should not exist at all. Any route is hard to cut politically, but if the leaders can say “We had no choice, there was no money”, that argument can trump the objections. Then, when revenue returns, that revenue does not have to go back to those routes that were cut in the “crisis” (that should have been cut on principle anyway). The revenue can instead go to the most productive routes and we end up with a more efficient allocation of resources that would have been difficult to arrive at without the “crisis”. Of course, our leaders could respond like short-sighted cowards and cut routes “equally”, then when revenue returns, instead of restoring the money “equally”, they allocate it based on other agendas. Given the makeup of the King County Council, unfortunately, I suspect the latter is more likely.

Thus, if we had wise and courageous leaders, I would be opposed to Uncle Sam stepping in to “save the day” since it could give us the chance to do some necessary house cleaning. And frankly, even if we have weak leadership, I don’t want Obama to come save the day. Metro is running an unsustainable operation. It needs to change. I’m not even opposed to letting Metro crumble as an organization if necessary. The sooner Metro folds, the sooner we can consolidate it with a competently run organization like ST or the City of Seattle.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/10/action-in-congress/#comment-49318 Martin H. Duke Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:06:36 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5592#comment-49318 7.1 is 10% of 71.
7.1 is 10% of 71.

]]> By: Kaleci http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/06/10/action-in-congress/#comment-49311 Kaleci Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:37:59 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=5592#comment-49311 "Locally, Metro is receiving $71m over two years from ARRA. Given that the gap is $91m in 2009-2010 (including some of the stimulus), $7.1m towards operating savings is not going to save the day." $71m or $7.1m?
“Locally, Metro is receiving $71m over two years from ARRA. Given that the gap is $91m in 2009-2010 (including some of the stimulus), $7.1m towards operating savings is not going to save the day.”

$71m or $7.1m?

]]>