This afternoon the King County Council will likely vote to put a tax package on the ballot that would prevent devastating cuts to Metro service.  This afternoon the campaign, Move King County Now, will hold a kickoff event at Fado Irish Pub.

Join Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, Kent Mayor Suzette Cooke, Kenmore Mayor David Baker, King County Executive Dow Constantine, King County Council Chair Larry Phillips, King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski, and King County Council Vice Chair Joe McDermott.

Appetizers will be served. The first 40 guests will receive a free drink ticket!

Co-sponsored by: Transportation Choices Coalition, Downtown Seattle Association, King County Labor Council, Futurewise, Fuse, One America, Washington Conservation Voters

Time: Today, Feb 24, 5:30-7:30pm

Location: Fado Irish Pub801 1st Avenue, Seattle

RSVP online here or on Facebook.

30 Replies to “Move King County Now Kickoff Event”

    1. Road & Transit had a rail component, drawing the ire of a certain eastside developer. But that developer loves buses.

  1. While I hate to see any transit service get cut, the neighboring agencies have both gone through drastic rounds of service cuts, and perhaps instead of looking at a king county only fix, it’s time to let the service be cut, the pain felt and hopefully a solution found for all the region as a whole.

    1. Nope. Just because the neighboring counties can’t get their act together and show enough political leadership to do the right thing doesn’t mean that King County has to emulate them in their failure. This is a great opportunity for KC to set a good example and show the rest of the state how things can get done.

      Yes, I would have preferred a better option out of the legislature, but with the MCC and R’s running the show in the Senate that prospect is pretty darn unlikely. But passing this in KC now will reduce votes for a statewide roads option later, so all in all this is good on a variety of levels. This will come back to bite the R’s in the rear….

      Keeping local taxes local is always a great option.

    2. King County should let its transit system fall into a ditch because Pierce County decided to? Nonsense. We need more transit, not less. The state has failed to fund Metro (or even come up with a funding source) for quite a while now. This wasn’t sudden. It’s time for King County to take this into our own hands and save our bus service (and fix our roads and bridges to boot.)

    3. Question, Mrz: Except for the pain-freak dental patient Bill Murray character in “Little Shop of Horrors”, and also the heroine of the “50 Shades of Grey” series, when was the last time you ever saw living creature function better for being in pain?

      And remember, the second example’s boss had to sign a generous contract before he did anything- probably the most perverted thing in the book. Something really twisted about idea that sadistic billionaires are by definition sexy. The 1930’s US ambassador’s real-life daughter in “Garden of Beasts” book who liked sleeping with secret policemen was healthy by comparison.

      Worst thing of all about pain: not only does physical ability fall off, but sufferer also becomes unable to think of ways around the problem using resources actually available. King County Metro’s handling of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is a textbook case. But euthanasia is not only unwarranted, but coroner says that re: budget cuts, refrigerator is full.

      But- you’re onto something about the multiple agencies. It’s really critical that all region’s agencies intensify efforts to coordinate their service so it’s easier to travel regionwide. Because right now that’s the way an increasing number of us are living our lives.

      Mark Dublin

      1. One benefit (if there is one) it does force an agency to re-prioritize how it delivers service and to where. I have seen this with PT, where service was re-allocated from suburban areas to preserve as much of the urban areas as possible. Although sadly, the level of service isn’t anywhere near where it should be in both urban and suburban areas, and is often only useable by those who have an absolute need. And I think it does give metro the opportunity to make some core changes in route structure to make better use of their service hours. Its a rather painful way of doing it, but it does allow this process to be easier. I would suggest, that metro go through with most of these plans, albeit restore much of the headways where warranted.

    4. Most King County legislators are happy to give Snohomish and Pierce more options for funding transit. I don’t even think Rodney Tom has a problem with it. The problem is the party caucus system, and Sen. Tom’s loyalty to it (as it makes him king of the Senate, if only he could sway a majority of his caucus more often).

      1. Between the three counties mentioned and also the part of Thurston that includes Olympia, and their legislators, let’s start getting together and figure out how to put ourselves in a position that we don’t have to care what Rodney Tom thinks about anything?

        Also think that above counties and City of Seattle should give generous help to forces of freedom and democracy in places currently ruled by forces that hate our freedom. Maybe free scholarships in public transit-related subjects to kids who have run away from those places so they can go back and create governments that share our values?

        Or conversely, when their entire populations under age 69 have escaped to Seattle, form either our own state or join the European Union, which already has countries with populations like five million?


      2. I will admit that my view may be somewhat tainted on this subject because special consideration has been given to King County Metro in years past in regards to funding solutions. For example, they were authorized the Congestion Reduction Charge (RCW 82.00.055). While only a temporary fix, it was written in such a way to benefit only King County, and no other PTBAs which are the vast majority of Transit Agencies in the state. I also believe that if Metro is able to find suitable funding (which I hope they do, I don’t want to see them go through the pain that their neighbors have felt) the issue of transit funding, and specifically the unstable and unpredictable nature of sole-source funding through the sales tax will not be addressed at the state level, and everyone else in the state will suffer because of it.

    5. The pain is in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. The No votes are mostly in Eastern Washington. What we consider pain, they consider rightsizing government and keeping a lid on taxes. The three counties and two dozen mayors did make a united plea to the state asking to improve transit in all counties (including Skagit, Whatcom and others), and the state just let them drift.

      The reason Metro got a two-year relief and other transit agencies didn’t, was that it convinced the state that it was taking significant strides to become more efficient, moreso than other transit agencies. So if the state liked its audit work and new performance metrics then, that’s still something.

  2. We seemed to have two different mic’s posting the past few days. One was calling for defunding Metro and not feeding “the beast”. One was criticizing Metro for keeping service hours under control and not getting getting a larger modeshare than cars. Can the two mic’s confirm they are two different commenters?

    1. As has been said at least a few times on this blog, someone named “mic” is probably a troll and shouldn’t be taken very seriously. Especially since there is no form of authentication on this site for comments, except for gravitars, which are hardly the gold standard in authentication.

      1. Two questions come to mind every time I hear the phrase in question, Aleks:

        1. What are you going to use to pull the wagon when it drops from hunger?
        2. What’s it going to cost to cut it up and haul it away?

        Just curious.


    2. Let’s not be deliberately dense. mic appears to want transit to succeed but is disappointed at the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of Metro and ST toward these ends. He’s thus as likely to find fault with unrealistic or uncritical transit advocates as with unconditional transit enemies (or those who blame our transit problems on transit enemies). This is something he shares with many other characters here that clearly want transit to succeed in Seattle, like Bruce Nourish.

      Compare David Lawson’s well-studied assertion that Metro could operate a much stronger and more connected network, but actually needs more hours to do this without dropping the ball on capacity and convenience for today’s most popular trips.

      1. Actually, David L. has made clear that Metro could already be providing a significantly better experience even without one additional cent of funding above today’s levels. Increased funding was mostly about bolstering and enhancing the span of said improvements.

        That Metro shows so little interest in fixing its structural defects — shifting blame for its failures to the same shouty voices that every successful transit agency on earth has learned to overcome — is the source of our frustration.

        Meanwhile, I couldn’t help but notice a whole lot of “green” (improved frequency on consolidated corridors) in that 17% cut graphic in the post above. Once again, if the “yes” narrative gets construed as favoring evermore money for the same unexamined crap, then my vote cannot be taken for granted.

      2. We’re not being dense, Al. mic makes bad arguments by twisting statistics, such as trotting out the money spent on building Link extensions that aren’t open yet, and then asking why they haven’t resulted in higher ridership.

        We ask him what efficiencies he would like to see enacted, and he disappears and restarts the misdirection another day. I’ve seen nearly everyone on this blog be critical of Metro and ST from time to time and offer suggestions how they could be better. mic has made no such effort.

      3. I share your concerns, d.p. However, the Metro cuts will be undoubtedly harmful – both to transit-dependent people (such as both of us) right now, and to the cause of transit ridership over time. On the flip side, some people in Metro have privately promised long-term service restructuring even absent cuts. Sometimes I doubt their commitment… but the last round of threatened cuts, sustained funding, and subsequent restructuring shows us that it’s possible even without harmful “shock therapy.”

      4. Sure, mic makes some dubious arguments, particularly against Link, but seeing as he’s just a random blog commenter that hasn’t commented on this post I’m not sure how that rises to where he deserves to be personally called out as the subject of a comment thread. I tend to think we should mostly discuss ideas rather than people, and people only when they’re particularly influential. I disagree with mic often enough but I don’t think he’s important enough to call out unprompted.

    3. Wow, my internet has been down a couple of days, and it seems Brent has taken me on as his ‘project’. No, it’s just one of me with the same old line. Transit, and I do mean collectively, is on a course that is not sustainable in the long run. You never argue with my numbers, just you don’t like me, which is fine. I don’t have much use for non-critical thinking cheerleaders either.
      I have every right to be critical of the fact that transit is over 10 billion in the construction project and has yet to move the overall mode share indices more than a point in 20 years. I also reserve the right to call ‘foul’ on your transit agency for letting cost rise 3 times the rate of inflation. One more ‘Perils of Pauline’ infusion of new taxes will not satisfy this Beast’s appetite under the current regime. Transit is getting obese, and sometimes a strict diet is exactly what is called for.
      I’ve called for separate posts on how to fix Metro to no avail.
      Here’s a question. MT 358 had ~6,000 daily riders in 2009 and now has 12,000 today, BEFORE the switch on RR-E was ever thrown. RR-E docs submitted to the FTA for grant funding called for 6,200 in the opening year of 2013. Exactly how did Metro double ridership on one line, in a few years, with little visible change or fanfare? That’s a huge success story that needs to be told and replicated elsewhere in the system.
      On the other hand, Central/Airport Link only added 6,200 new riders to transit (B4’After Study), by spending a couple of Billion. Metro didn’t see a change in bus hours either. Hours actually went up, in addition to Link spending in the corridor. WHY?
      Asking for answers when Metro’s managers have their hands out again is the best time to get their attention. It’s called in informed democracy.
      Now that my computer is back, I’m leaving this morning on an extended trip, so will just have to let this thread die as is.

      1. One vote will not sway this election. Feel free to join me in the ballot booth, with the curtain drawn. PS, there’s a reason mail in ballots are in two envelopes also.

      2. Mic, I’m looking forward to your guest post.

        I’m also looking forward to hearing what the numbers look like when not-yet-opened Link extensions are subtracted out – it’s not fair to judge them yet when they haven’t opened.

      3. mic,

        Just the other day, you criticized Metro for not increasing service hours. Today, you criticized Metro for increasing service hours. When we point out your inconsistencies (and there have been many), you just say we don’t like you. Man up! Answer some of our questions, if you will.

      4. While I don’t have any facts, I would think as our population expands transit helps keep the ratio of trips in check, not nessasrily converting existing trips from auto to bus or rail, but attracting new trips that may otherwise be auto trips thus keeping the ratio somewhat in check.

  3. No matter what, remember: You can do this!

    Need inspiration? Back in November 2004, C-TRAN in Clark Co. had a ballot measure defeated, a contingency plan that involved greatly reduced service only 5 days a week, and naysayer attacks going as far as ‘I hope you know how to walk.’ In June 2005, a new ballot measure was placed on the Sept. 20, 2005 ballot, a group from far and wide came together to support it; fast-forward to 8:10 PM that election night, when an announcement was made to the group assembled to hear the results as they happened:
    “I just got off the phone with (then-C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO) Lynne (Griffith), she’s at the elections office, with 90% of the votes counted, it’s 67% YES!”

  4. I attended the function. The mayor gave a nice speech in support, and so did the county executive. Apparently, the KCC voted yesterday and this fix is going to the ballot in April. They were signing up people for phone banking, so if anyone is interested, contact the campaign.

Comments are closed.