Good evening, readers. Tonight, Metro’s Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF) is hosting a town hall-style forum at the University of Washington. Among a panel of Task Force members are King County councilmember Larry Phillips and Seattle city councilmember Tom Rasmussen. The forum tonight includes a presentation followed by an open Q & A session. Follow along for live updates below the jump.
6:34pm: Attendance is light, roughly 10, give or take. You can’t expect too much interest out of college students.
6:40pm: A UW student rep kicks off the event and welcomes the panelists.
6:41pm: The rep goes over a brief history and background of transportation at the UW. The transition to ORCA with the adoption of a Universal U-Pass is expected to increase local ridership. Another fun fact: every state dollar invested in the UW produces a yield of $22 in the local economy.
6:44pm: Josh Kavanagh, UW Transportation director, turns the mic over to Larry Phillips.
6:45pm: Larry Phillips, chair of the King County Council Environment & Transportation Committee, kicks off the panelist presentation.
6:45pm: All panelists are now introducing themselves. The following are present: Tom Rasmussen (City of Seattle), Larry Phillips (King County Council), John Howell (Cedar River Group), Larry Yok (Highline CC), Kate Joncas (DSA), Victor Obeso (Metro), and Jim Stanton (Microsoft).
6:47pm: Larry Phillips retakes the mic and introduces the premise of tonight’s presentation.
6:48pm: For some background, King County is facing a $60M shortfall in the general fund, and an additional $60M in Metro’s budget alone. This was the leading cause for the formation of the RTTF.
6:49pm: The PSRC’s forecast for 2040 predict a 42% increase in residents and 57% in jobs. With most growth occurring in the largest cities, non-car-based transportation is vital.
6:50pm: Some statistics on Metro ridership: 110M annual rides. Between 2001 and 2008, Metro had the highest annual growth of boardings per platform hour of any major transit system in the US.
6:51pm: Between 2009 and 2015, slow revenues will result in a $1.176B budget hole with most revenue coming from sales tax.
6:52pm: By 2015, 17% of service hours will be cut if nothing is done. That’s equivalent to all service in the Eastside subarea.
6:54pm: An additional $117M annually is necessary to maintain 2011 service along with Transit Now improvements.
6:54pm: Phillips goes over Metro response: the performance audit, service cuts, fare increases, etc.
6:55pm: Phillips gets to the formation of the RTTF, a 28 member task force, whose work we’ve covered thoroughly.
6:57pm: The next steps: King County council accepted the RTTF’s recommendations and a new policy framework is currently being developed. The Regional Transit Committee will have to adopt new policies under this framework.
6:59pm: Councilmember Phillips concludes his presentation and turns the mic over the John Howell.
7:00pm: Howell talks more about the purpose and formation of the RTTF.
7:02pm: The RTTF spent two whole months educating themselves about the budget situation and Metro’s basic operating structure.
7:04pm: The basic themes that emerged from the Task Force discussions: Regional Perspective, Transparency (and Metro answers!), Efficiency, Balance Approach, and Performance Based.
7:06pm: Howell goes over the Recommendations:
1) Adopt new performance measures
2) Control Metro operating costs
3) Policy priorities to be based on: emphasis on productivity, ensuring social equity, & providing geographic value.
4) Development of transparent guidelines, not based on a formula.
5) Creating long-term sustainable funding model
7:11pm: Howell defines productivity, one that emphasizes high ridership and efficiency– also strong relationships to land use, environment, etc. “Geographic value” balances access with productivity and considers tax equity, like ST’s subarea equity policy. “Social equity” emphasizes service for transit-dependent populations.
7:13pm: The RTTF was primarily for developing policy guidance.
7:14pm: A few dates: adoption of the recommendations by the county council by July of this year, and incorporation into the 2012/2013 budget by November.
7:15pm: Tom Rasmussen takes the mic and talks about the relationship between Seattle and suburbs– i.e., why does the west side get more service than the Eastside?
7:16pm: Rasmussen iterates that you can’t just base policy off productivity, or else only Seattle would get service. Emphasizes it as a county issue.
7:18pm: Josh Kavanagh talks about social equity and diversity within the University community.
7:19pm: Kavanagh talks about providing mid-day and owl service for those not working traditional commuting hours.
7:21pm: Larry Yok takes the mic and talks about lobbying the State legislature for additional Metro funding.
7:23pm: Kate Joncas’ emphasis with the RTTF was about “connecting jobs with transit.” She says there is sometimes a “push-pull” kind of thing between Seattle and neighboring cities. Joncas also talks about lower-income transit-dependent populations.
7:24pm: Jim Stanton talks about transit being critical for Microsoft commuters. Stanton says we need to “change our perspective” in how service is delivered.
7:28pm: The floor is open for questions. Mark Dublin, a frequent STB commenter, asks how much the Thanksgiving blizzard cost Metro. He asks if Metro might consider pursuing transit-only right-of-way, i.e., transit-only lanes, express lanes. Things like these would have helped avoid the snowstorm fiasco.
7:32pm: Victor Obeso talks about working with other governments in making transit improvements. As far as dedicated ROW, Obeso says that costs can’t allow Metro buses to match the reliability of Link.
7:34pm: Tom Rasmussen says that many of the transit-only lane proposals are being heavily opposed by neighborhoods, like Magnolia and West Seattle.
7:36pm: An audience member asks about 40/40/20.
7:38pm: Tom Rasmussen explains some of the shortfalls with 40/40/20 and geographic equity. He brings up an example of lots of sales tax revenue being generated by auto dealers in an area where few people are likely to take transit.
7:40pm: Larry Phillips talks about the history of 40/40/20 and how re-discussion came back after it was realized how badly 60/20/20 would grind with 40/40/20.
7:42pm: Jim Stanton calls 40/40/20 a matter of “transit politics” — a formula for a political solution, but not a practical solution.
7:45pm: An audience member asks about the additional revenue sources that the State has authority to grant as well as collaboration with partner agencies.
7:45pm: Larry Phillips talks about political strategies when approaching Olympia legislators. He says we’re “spending an awful lot of time cutting taxes around here” instead of focusing on what needs to be paid. Phillips believes we should stay away from property taxes as a funding source.
7:49pm: John Howell says that the Task Force did not focus on specific sources of revenue, but more on emphasizing the problem to Olympia.
7:50pm: Victor Obeso takes the question about coordinating with partner agencies with examples like ORCA and common facilities. Metro avoids planning service that competes with other agencies.
7:57pm: Phillips supports tapping into the gas tax for Metro funding.
7:57pm: Jim Stanton says we need to broaden the discussion about funding and to be cautious with the State, especially with the massive $4B budget hole in Olympia.
8:00pm: An audience member asks how discussions are factoring in promoting better land use.
8:01pm: Victor Obeso talks about regional growth policies and again emphasizes geographic value.
8:04pm: Larry Yok says the “build it, they will come” principle will be hard to realize with the service cuts.
8:06pm: Josh Kavanagh talks about the the importance of partnerships with suburban communities.
8:08pm: Jim Stanton says Microsoft would rather partner with Metro for additional service as opposed to implementing service themselves.
8:09pm: Josh Kavanagh says that service “suspensions” may not return, even if the budget becomes prosperous again.
8:14pm: An audience member asks how Metro operating costs stack up with other modes. No surprise, “it depends.” Stanton talks about using different more cost-effective modes like vanpools.
8:17pm: A question comes up about the proportion of Access van trips going to health/doctor services versus work trips. Obeso says that the proportion is much higher and how Metro is making the system more accessible for persons with disabilities.
8:19pm: Nearly all operating costs for the vanpools are recovered by “farebox” partially because there’s no need to pay a driver.
8:20pm: John Howell closes out the the forum with a word of thanks to everyone.
“Rasmussen iterates that you can’t just base policy off productivity, or else only Seattle would get service.”
Fine by me.
How about all the taxes paid by those in the South and East sub-area. Are you willing to forego that too.
Fine by me.
Yup :-)
Where sales taxes are paid isn’t necessarily representative of where the people live who are paying them or where transit resources should be allocated. Should Southcenter Mall have more transit service then the UW just because it generates more sales tax revenue?
Great job live-blogging, Sherwin! Each entry is noteworthy and legible, every point is communicated clearly, and the cumulative effort is easy to follow.
Were you a stenographer in a past life?