"CT Layover Site", by Oran

The Community Transit board, having not been given additional funding flexibility by the State, finalized their draconian June service cut, eliminating all Sunday service and making deep reductions in weekday and Saturday service.  They did approve the late proposal to modify routes 247 and 277 to keep some service in Stanwood and Gold Bar.

CT’s webpage on the changes is here.

4 Replies to “CT Service Cuts Now Final”

  1. To the entire Washington State Legislature: Shame.

    To every legislator who voted against averting this: Next election, please lose.

    To Metro and Sound Transit: as a King County resident, you’ve got my permission to use whatever resources we can to help Snohomish and Pierce.

    Mark Dublin

  2. The Legislature clearly needs to address transit funding, which is overly reliant on sales tax, which is presently way down. Something that isn’t subject to such fluctuations would be preferable, with a corresponding reduction in the sales tax. However, in conjunction with addressing funding, they need to add accountability to transit agencies that doesn’t exist at present, and it wouldn’t hurt for them to look at streamlining in places that would benefit riders. On accountability, require publishing of financial statements on websites that include something like the top 25 salaries, for instance, which many taxpayers would be surprised at vis-a-vis what the Governor is paid and vs. that of other agencies in the area (breadth, volume, and complexity of service). More info about major spending initiatives would also be enlightening. Online staff reports would be useful. In the streamlining arena, fares are ripe for simplification, and Sound Transit has taken a giant step towards this in reducing five fare zones to three. The other transit providers would be wise to replicate this, as well as matching the fares of the others (right now, there are variances on the same routing). Other potential opportunities I’ve seen suggested are having a single bus transit provider per county and centralizing bus purchasing, grants, and fare setting. Transit providers will fight all of the above in an effort to protect their turfs under the banner of “protecting local decisions,” which in my view is only a valid argument against those suggesting something like a bureaucracy-generating, behemoth tri-county transit agency for all operations. This makes no sense except maybe in the areas mentioned previously.

Comments are closed.