Comments on: Getting Rid of 40/40/20

By: Regional Transit Task Force Members Appointed - Seattle Transit Blog

Regional Transit Task Force Members Appointed - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:45:58 +0000

[...] interested in repealing 40/40/20 will be interested to know that there are 18 slots identified by subarea, with 6 appointees from [...]

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:32:44 +0000

I’m assuming that Metro’s existing practice for routes that span multiple subareas will remain: charge both subareas if it serves both directions AM and PM, or charge just the outer subarea if it’s inbound-AM, outbound-PM. That should account for regional planning goals.

Urban/suburban/rural may be OK, but where do you draw the line at urban? Is all of Bellevue urban, or just the part west of 122nd? Is downtown Kirkland urban?

By: willyj

willyj — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:24:04 +0000

Did anyone notice the changes the county council made in their motion creating a task force to examine KC Metro?

Full details are here: http://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/custom/king/legislation.htm Search for 2009-0649.

It requires equal representation on the task force from the three sub-areas and in cases when there are only 2 representatives from a constituency then they both cannot be from the same sub-area. For example 6 elected officials are suppose to be appointed to the task force with each sub-area required to have two reps. However in this case it goes a step further but limiting Seattle and Bellevue to only 1 rep. Not only is this 40/40/20 policy unfair in terms of where service and tax dollars go but even when we try to gather input on the future of the transit agency we act like its the US Senate and give representation based on arbitrary political boundaries.

By: eddiew

eddiew — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:56:41 +0000

Martin: the emphasis that five votes is policy is a good addition to the discussion. Please consider that raising new transit service subsidy should be considered simultaneously with service allocation. If new revenue does not attract five votes, major service reductions will follow. Good service investments can be made in all three subareas.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:50:12 +0000

I’m not discussing them as riders, but as taxpayers.

Riders pay a rather small share of the system costs compared to taxpayers, so don’t be surprised if taxpayers have more policy influence than riders.

By: Z

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:39:24 +0000

I’m not sure how metro plans their routes, but when you have a large dispartiy in your service area (urban vs. suburban vs. rural) It would only make sense to have 3 levels of criteria to detirmine if a route is successful/productive or not. It would not make sense to apply the same standards as a route on capitol hill, to the bus to emunclaw. That being said, they should not be weighed totally eaqually either, but on a sliding scale so that your less productive lifeline services dont fall off as quickly.

Presuming you could figure that math out, you could design some kind of formula, mabye even using ridership data of what % to keep in the subarea and what % to fund services in other subareas. Because obviously, just becuase a person rides outside the subarea it dosent mean their trip ends where they get off the bus in downtown seattle.

By: Z

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:32:44 +0000

It works to an extent. I think you need a % more than a firm line, although i think Sound Transit does seem to spend subarea money in other benefitting subareas (I.E. you could have downtown seattle improvements partially paid for by the Pierce Subarea, as you have sounder and ST Express serving). Making it a % would give some flexibility to planning, while still keeping the majority of the funds inside the subarea. Of course some thinks like equipment seem to be subarea independant and gets moved around at whim.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:08:39 +0000

Okay the reading comprehension part was totally unnecessary and not cool.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:58:56 +0000

[whining about comment policy]

By: Chad R

Chad R — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:34:51 +0000

I think if someone is living in Enumclaw, Carnation, Fall City, etc., then riding public transportation is not a very high priority for them. Those are not the riders that we should be looking for, given the limited funds that public transportation has. It should be focused on the areas/cities that have a public need/desire for public transportation, not trying to fill a need that isn’t really wanted in the first place. Why spend so much money trying to fund bus routes to these far-flung areas when busses in Seattle are packed full and passing by people? Public transportation should be more focused(but not completely focused) on serving the public that actually wants/needs it and is ready to use it.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:06:45 +0000

No, sub-area equity doesn’t really address the problem either. It’s simply another arbitrary division that doesn’t take into account regional planning goals and the reality that people are working and traveling in and out of each area.

I like the idea put forth by Jarrett during the Executive’s race that we should refocus a formula on a three-way split between urban, suburban, and rural routes.

It creates a hierarchy of where service should be concentrated, allowing Bellevue and Seattle to be treated equally, while acknowledging that Redmond needs more service than Carnation.

It perhaps presents new goals for how to create routes and where to connect them, and maybe suggests different types of vehicles/modes running within and between those areas.

And it breaks up some of the political argument, while supporting Martin’s goal of giving more service to communities willing to accept more density.

By: groan

groan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:00:53 +0000

“The city and suburbs need to work together for the good of the entire metropolis, not work against each other. I realize that’s politically difficult, but it’s where we need to go.”

Or not, a la Detroit. There is a reason why folks move to the suburbs…

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:58:20 +0000

[off-topic thread]

By: Chad R

Chad R — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:56:08 +0000

Seattle still gets back less road taxes than we give out

By: Chad R

Chad R — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:50:02 +0000

If only politicians and community leaders would do the ‘right thing.’ But, can you see Kemper Freeman agreeing to have light rail go through Bellevue without a fight? I hate the idea of bargaining to try and find a solution because then everything gets so watered down that the final result is nothing what it was supposed to be from the beginning.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:53:26 +0000

The city and suburbs need to work together for the good of the entire metropolis, not work against each other. I realize that’s politically difficult, but it’s where we need to go.

Subarea equity a la Sound Transit seems to work well and is considered fair. The concept apparently didn’t exist when 40/40/20 was enacted, but now it has been proven. So replacing 40/40/20 with subarea equity sounds like a good idea.

By: wes kirkman

wes kirkman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:36:05 +0000

Actually, we currently receive less than the per-capita share of county-wide transit dollars. I would be happy just to see a fair distribution. But your hypothetical campaign still stands….even if we just made things fair.

By: Zach Shaner

Zach Shaner — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:45:32 +0000

Does the 40% that goes to East King necessarily have to be spread out evenly through the subarea? What is to prevent that sort of rewarding to places like Kirkland? Is there any intra-subarea competition available? I’m not sure how it all works.

By: Blue Swan

Blue Swan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:45:22 +0000

[off-topic thread]

By: Blue Swan

Blue Swan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:43:13 +0000

[off-topic thread]