Another initiative by Tim Eyman

Eighteen years ago, anti-tax activist Tim Eyman decimated funding for public transit with his first $30 car tab initiative, which eliminated the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET).

His latest initiative, I-947, once again proposes to replace the current MVET with a flat $30 car tab fee. The initiative is estimated to cost Sound Transit between $6.9 billion and $8.1 billion. By Permanent Defense’s count, this is Eyman’s sixth attempt to kill funding for transit.

Currently, car owners pay several different fees depending on where they live when renewing vehicle tabs. The Department of Licensing provides a calculator to estimate vehicle tab fees.

  • Everyone in the state pays a standard fee of $38.75 plus a weight fee which helps fund highway maintenance and construction projects, the Washington State Patrol and the Washington State Ferries.
  • Local jurisdictions have the option of charging car owners an additional fee by forming a transportation benefit district. These districts are allowed to collect up to $20 a year without voter approval, or up to $100 if approved by voters. Approximately 50 cities have established transportation benefit districts around the state. Seattle collects an $80 fee to expand bus services and distribute bus passes to middle and high school students through the Youth ORCA program.
  • Car owners living in the Sound Transit taxing district pay an additional fee. With the approval of the ST3 package, the MVET rate increased from 0.3% to 1.1% of the assessed value of the car.

If I-947 passes it would roll back the standard fee to $30 and eliminate all MVET. It would end weight fees imposed by the state government, transportation benefit districts fees and all car tab taxes helping to fund Sound Transit, according to the initiative’s website. Under the initiative, car owners would pay a $30 annual fee. Weight fees and TBDs could be restored by voter approval.

The initiative would also eliminate a 0.3% tax on retail car sales that funds the state’s multimodal account. This account provides grants for regional mobility, rural mobility, special needs, and vanpools.

Although I-947 eliminates the only MVET in the state, it also requires any future MVET to use the Kelley Blue Book value to compute the tax. As Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon explained on STB, this technique cannot be bonded against and effectively rules it out as a funding tool for major capital projects.

Sound Transit estimates I-947 would reduce MVET collection by roughly $6.9 billion through 2041 for ST3 projects and $1.2 billion through 2028 for Sound Move projects. This projection does not include taxpayer costs for additional borrowing which could be used to offset the loss.

The initiative requires regional transit bonds financed with the MVET to be retired, defeased or refinanced if the covenants allow. It is not immediately clear if this would apply to Sound Transit’s bonds.

I-947 does still allow Sound Transit to use sales, employer, rental car, or property tax to help fund projects.

If I-947 passes, the initiative wouldn’t directly impact King County Metro’s funding, as the agency no longer receives any money from vehicle licensing fees. However, Metro would lose the money Seattle gives it from its Transportation Benefit District. TBD fees would also be erased and cities would be required to seek voter approval before imposing any fee in the future.

Voting Like it’s 1999

A previous $30 car tab fee push by Eyman in 1999, approved by 56 percent of voters, eliminated the MVET, taking with it about a third of King County Metro’s funding. Although the 1999 initiative was later deemed unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court, the legislature did not reinstate the MVET. Instead, it gave local transit agencies additional sales tax authority.

Today, sales tax accounts for 56% of Metro’s budget. Fares are a distant second, accounting for only 16%. Justin D. Leighton, Executive Director of the Washington State Transit Association, estimated most transit agencies are now 70% funded by sales taxes.

“The 1999 measure made (transit agencies) so dependent on this one source, eggs all in one basket,” he said. “When you are 70 percent dependent on consumers consuming, that’s not good during recessions.”

With Metro’s increased reliance on sales tax, the ups and downs of the region’s economy have had a huge impact on bus service. As the great recession eroded the sales tax revenue, Metro was eventually forced to make service cuts.

“Metro and our customers currently benefit from a strong regional economy that has enabled us to grow and invest in transit service to meet increasing demand,” wrote Scott Gutierrez, a spokesperson for Metro, in an email. “However, Metro will continue to be challenged as we plan for the future and meeting the mobility needs of 1 million more residents expected here over the next 20 years. Part of our challenge is ensuring we can provide sustainable transit service in the long term when our primary revenue source fluctuates and depends heavily on economic conditions.”

Hurdles Remain

Eyman needs to collect 259,622 signatures from voters by December 29 for this initiative to go to the State Legislature. Legislators would then have a choice: vote on the measure; let voters decide directly; or approve an alternative, sending both measures to voters in 2018. Eyman also filed three other initiatives, all titled, “Sound Transit Lied – Revote on Sound Transit Taxes.” Just last year, Eyman again put forth a similar initiative but failed to gather enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot. According to the Seattle Times, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson is currently suing Eyman for $2.1 million, alleging he profited off past initiative campaigns.

“What this initiative is about is about allowing the voters to have a do-over,” Eyman said while unveiling the initiative outside King Street Station. “Now that you know how much the car tabs are going to cost, do you think that is fair?”

This “do-over” now includes the entire state rather than just the Sound Transit taxing district which includes King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

“That doesn’t seem right,” Leighton said, “that Eastern Washington voters will decide if Sound Transit should have this authority or not.”

48 Replies to “A Do-over for Whom, Tim Eyman?”

  1. How is this initiative different from the 1999 one that was unconstitutional? I assume you can’t just re-submit something once it’s been explicitly declared unconstitutional?

    1. The 1999 measure was unconstitutional because it lowered the license fee to $30 and would have required public votes for new taxes (I think). The State Constitution requires initiatives to cover a single topic, and the initiative was voided because it addressed more than one topic. The legislature concluded that the voters were voting in favor of the $30 car tabs and not the unrelated taxes, and enacted the $30 car tabs on that justification.

      This current proposed measure doesn’t address any unrelated issues. I-695 was Eyman’s first initiative, and he clearly has learned his lesson.

    2. One issue is that the original measure would have required a default on the MVET-backed bonds, which would have broken a contract. This measure at least tries to avoid that by requiring ST to buy back those bonds as quickly as possible.

      Whether that is sufficient is unclear.

    3. ” I-695 was Eyman’s first initiative, and he clearly has learned his lesson.”

      Several other Eyman initiatives have been struck down for the same reason: multiple subjects. So if had learned his lesson it took quite awhile. I’m not a constitutional lawyer so I can’t say whether this one is bulletproof. But we should assume it is and plan for the worst, while hoping it doesn’t get enough signatures.

      Some people believe he intentionally writes constitutionally flawed initiatives, because his goal is not to change policy but to raise money from campaigns, and once an initiative succeeds, he can no longer raise money on that issue. I don’t really believe that because all his initiatives are anti-tax and anti-transit, when he could have taken a broader stance on more issues.

      1. Several other Eyman initiatives have been struck down for the same reason: multiple subjects. So if had learned his lesson it took quite awhile.

        The lesson he learned was that it’s in his interest to promote campaigns for unconstitutional initiatives, because it keeps the grift going–after the unconstitutional version is struck down, he can bring back and get paid for promoting a slightly different version of it.

      2. Not true that all of his initiatives are anti-tax and anti-transit. Add anti-gay to the list:
        Referendum 65 2006 Repeal ESHB 2661, legalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation
        And there are others:
        I-18 2003 Reduce size of King County Council from 13 to 9 members
        I-200 1998 Prohibit affirmative action in public employment, education and contracting

        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Eyman

        He’s just an all-around nice guy.

  2. What’s our proof that the State Legislature, and another Democratic governor, won’t flake out again like they did last time? In my voting life-time, pretty much starting with the Viet Nam war, only thing worse than a far- right Republican or Dixiecrat has been a liberal Democrat who’s afraid of one.

    Mark Dublin

    1. It’s a different environment than it was in 1999. Pugetopolis’ population has increased, congestion has gotten worse, the cities and counties have grown louder insisting on transit, and more legislators believe it can no longer be ignored. Travel between Olympia, and Pierce and King Counties has grown from minor to major, so it affects the people who around the state capitol. Transit has also become more important in Spokane and in other small cities and rural areas, all of which depend on transit benefit districts. So there could be a counter-campaign beyond King and Snohomish Counties if this initiative has legs. Even though Eyman lives in Mukilteo, a lot of people in Snohomish really want the Link extension and Paine Field detour, and can’t tolerate a future of ever-lengthening bus commutes that are already 60-90 minutes or longer.

      1. Different environment but the house Democrats sure caved on the MVET tax this session. I am not hopeful they won’t do it again.

    2. If you haven’t noticed how much the Democratic party–voters and politiicians–have moved squarely to the left on issues like this over the last 18 years, I don’t know what to tell you.

      1. Only this, djw: Worst thing in Government at all levels, throughout time, is a liberal Democrat whose ideas are even holder than he (or lately she) is. Real reason God spared the Israelites from having to take Moses along.
        For a war they’d just started.

        Really have noticed improvements in new voters’ outlook-my own outlook would be nicer if this had happened at age 17 instead of 72. However, it’s a doubtful sign I’m getting complements on sweaters older than the speaker.
        “Retro-” should always end with “-grade.”

        But Mike, your description of traffic’s effect along the Federal Highway that Farrell’s Wrecking Yard just bought for a main lot is so Britishly Understated that the only correct response is: “Quite.”

        I’m doing the best I can suggesting a fleet of hydrofoils, and also extending Sounder service short ride farther to Olympia suburb of Lacey. Maybe we can just rent the boats-which need to be those Russian ones the size of railroad coaches.

        They also make very low altitude flying boats that can do water or land. Or maybe even car roofs and hoods, which are sturdily resistant to motion.

        MD

      2. Mark comes from a time where workers across society were in this thing called a union, which exerted enough pressure that politicians both D and R focused on the rights of workers and consumers. That’s arguably more liberal than the recent movement to the left. (Although it had a blind spot for non-whites.)

        Mark, your ferry won’t be any faster. And you’d have to get to north Tacoma to catch it — still going through the worst traffic which everybody says is around JBLM. Or are you envisoining ferries going down to Olympia? Better plan on two hours travel time and a fare over $15 each way.

      3. Worst thing in Government at all levels, throughout time, is a liberal Democrat whose ideas are even holder than he (or lately she) is.

        As is frustratingly often the case, my lack of Mark Dublin comment translator leaves me unable to follow the conversation. I have literally no idea what this means. Nonetheless, I sincerely doubt that the subset of liberal Democrats Mark is attempting to describe here are (perhaps an example would help–can you name one?), in fact, worse than, say, Donald Trump or Jeff Sessions or Jorg Haider or Marine Le Pen, etc etc, in any meaningful sense.

  3. A couple things to keep in mind here. By going for the jugular to rescind all car tab authority statewide, Eyman has given himself a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that he can have a statewide vote while marketing it as a “Stick it to Sound Transit!” bill. The curse is that a lot of other local agencies use this authority in more popular ways. This would kill Seattle’s Prop 1, Spokane’s recent transit ballot measure, and a host of other local projects. That creates a naturally much broader coalition to oppose the measure. Even if you wanted a corrective to the ST MVET, this is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

  4. “Weight fees and TBDs could be restored by voter approval.”

    Well gee, let’s look at the existing taxes.

    Standard fee: $38.75 (reduced to $30). Not voter approved.
    State weight fee: (eliminated). Not voter approved. Used for highways.
    Seattle TBD MVET: $80 (eliminated). Voter approved. For transit capital projects and operations.
    ST MVET: (eliminated). voter approved.

    Most of the Seattle MVET is voter approved, and all the transit portions are. So this would essentially force a revote because… the original vote was so long ago? But it was only a year or two ago.

  5. Eyeman is a charleton, he does what he does because he knows people will fall for his antics. Eventually people either get bored of said antics or being sued because people wise up to what you’re actually doing.

    1. Or maybe not charlatan, I dunno. I just don’t like him and what he’s been trying to do time and time again as many others have said here. For me, i see it not happening as it will likely be thrown out as it has been deemed unconstitutional 6 times now. Along with you’ll likely see a decently sized coalition against him from all transit agencies in WA if it was to get to the ballot box or the legislative floor. As like others have said, they’re reliant on that TBD and if your trying to cut that off to them they aren’t going to be all too pleased about that .

    2. That could be a good sight, if all the transit agencies and cities across the state line up unanimously to oppose this, as Pugetopolan entities did to support ST3. That could get people to realize the statewide importance of transit and the inadequate shape it’s in more than anything else has.

  6. This is why the gas tax is a superior funding source (for now – EVs will erode it eventually). TE is not even trying to repeal the gas tax increases because people hardly notice the gas tax.

    If the gas tax was increased and the “weight fee” repealed, we could have the same funding level for roads and lower car tabs.

    1. “TE is not even trying to repeal the gas tax increases because people hardly notice the gas tax.”

      Regardless of how noticeable the gas tax is, the right wing in this state has a history of trying to thwart gas tax increases.

      The anti-tax crowd opposed Gary Locke’s 2002 highway funding referendum, and in 2005, John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur organized an initiative (I-912) to repeal the gas tax increase in the 2005 Transportation Package. They easily qualified for the ballot and it was presumed they were going to win. Tim Eyman backed the I-912 effort and sang its praises.

      A coalition called Keep Washington Rolling formed to defeat I-912 (the Northwest Progressive Institute, which I lead, was a member), and ran a really effective NO campaign. I-912 was defeated at the ballot. Since that watershed victory over the anti-tax crowd, Republican legislators have become less squeamish about voting to raise gas taxes. After the Connecting Washington package passed in 2015, no serious attempt was made to overturn the gas tax increases via ballot measure.

  7. Let’s keep voting until the results go our way. Heck let’s have a do over of last year’s presidential election. That’s not how it works people!!

    1. There is a certain segment of our body politic who at best pay lip service to that quaint idea known as “democracy,” by which they mean “we like it, if we win – otherwise just do what we want.” It’s a close corollary of the “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” principle. More than tangentially related are the “local/states’ rights” crowd who do not want you or I to decide what they do, but certainly don’t mind exercising their God-given rights to tell us what we should do.

      The worst thing is, they don’t even bother to try and hide it any more.

      1. Nothing at all new about this, Scott. US history’s champion fake patriots have always been the slaver-holders and their sympathizers, constituents, and proud descendants.

        The “Freedom” they were, and are, willing to destroy their country for was and is the freedom to obliterate millions of other people’s freedom. The world’s worst tyrant was Abraham Lincoln. Barack Obama pathetic imitation tyrant.

        That’s why it’s tempting to advocate letting the best-known Confederate flags flutter their way gracefully down when the building gets blown out from under them with cannons firing from under the Stars and Stripes.

        This has always been the problem of democratic government of any kind, how to let the will of the current majority determine policy, but without doing damage to individual rights.

        Chief among is which, on the political scale, is the right to change the size and composition of the majority. Criticism of frequent attempts at democracy where there’s never been any experience with it: “One citizen, one vote…one time.”

        Best example right now- Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Though any critic has to keep in mind that our slave years, which started long before our Independence, outnumber our sort of non-slave ones. And aren’t dead beyond revival yet.

        One critical necessity for democratic government: Confidence that you can lose an election and live. Time and experience. Time and experience and the guts to check and see from time to time. And like all preventive maintenance and immune-system health, constant attention.

        And incidentally, argument about whether we’re supposed to be a Republic or a Democracy: How about saying the USA is a democracy, whose governing arrangement is as a republic?

        Mark

  8. Lizz, this is a great piece. Thanks for putting it together.

    One thing that’s important to know… you write: “Eyman needs to collect 259,622 signatures from voters by December 29 for this initiative to go to the State Legislature.”

    It would be more accurate to say Eyman needs 259,622 *valid* signatures from Washington voters by that date. If he does not have an adequate cushion, he will not qualify I-947, because some signatures will be duplicates or otherwise invalid (signature mismatch, unregistered signer, etc.)

    In 2006, Eyman submitted signatures for I-917, which also tried to slash vehicle fees, but his cushion was not large enough — so I-917 did not qualify. The Secretary of State spent months checking all of the signatures, at a not insignificant expense to taxpayers.

    To pass a random sample check, an initiative campaign needs to collect around 330,000 signatures. 25% extra is considered to be a sufficient cushion, and will enable a campaign to qualify for a random sample check by the Secretary of State.

  9. Thanks, Mike. Kidding about the boats is getting old, for reasons you mention. Though I’m lucky enough to have a car I really like, a choice of routes same, but most of all, absolute leisure not to have to get to a job.

    I’d rather spend three hours at my own speed, including coffee breaks, than an hour stuck in traffic. Though never sure it won’t be more, and suddenly, between exits and no way to get out of either traffic or car.

    But hydrofoil idea is mostly attempt to encourage people not to give up an expect our whole generation will spend the rest of its working life spending four hours a day stuck in traffic in order to earn our living.

    What exactly are we going to do? Hard to feature getting express lanes the regional length of I-5 in less than ten years. Honestly, what do we do? So last idea of mine, ’til I get some rest from thinking about it:

    Now that new track past Lakewood will carry Amtrak trains all the way to Portland, what’s to prevent Sounder from terminating in Lacey, half hour bus ride at most into Olympia itself? Only thing I can think of not at the mercy of I-5 traffic.

    Any other ideas?

    Mark

    1. Your state legislators can make the train happen, and arrange for Intercity Transit to manage the taxes and budget and coordinate with Sound Transit. But if you’re extending Sounder to Lacey, why not go all the way to Olympia? Is Lacey really close enough to be good enough long-term? I’ve never been down to Thurston County because of the lack of transit — only once in a car when my dad had business in the capitol, and once on the way to Ocean Shores (which wasn’t as interesting as Alki, although I did get to spend a night in Aberdeen and see its prewar architecture and weekday bus schedule to Oly and Ocean Shores). But I’ve heard there’s a disused track between Lacey and downtown Olympia which could be revived, although homeowners may have made that impossible now. But again, your legislators could do something about that if they wanted to.

      1. Is Brian Bundridge still in range of wi-fi? I mean not at the throttle of the Trans Siberian. Because I think several years ago he mentioned, accurately from what I can see, that what tracks are still left between Lacey and Olympia aren’t in shape for passengers. I think some are now foot and bike paths.

        Thing that ticks me off worst is that when I moved to Olympia in January 2014, it was a comfortable easy ride to Seattle. Even if it did take longer than transit should- an hour to Tacoma, and another one to Seattle, IT and ST could generally keep schedule.ST 592 also took two hours. Without my coffee break.

        Now? With all the money in the world what are these buses supposed to do? Fort Lewis connection keeps me thinking, maybe too many 1950’s giant-ant apocalypse movies where the army all got eaten ’til the hero got there. But they really did try, in addition to knowing how to clean a toilet and make a bed so you could bounce a quarter off the Army blanket.

        I wonder what would happen if, maybe starting with an exercise, enough people who always ride straight through to Seattle or other centers on I-5 every rush hour, would agree to ride express buses.

        Running on quickly created bus-only lanes. And leaving other lanes for people needing more local driving. If straight through percentage is high enough, might really be a faster ride for everybody.

        Because I think reason most motorists aren’t convinced that transit’s worth a wooden car-tab, I mean nickel, is that they’ve never experienced it when it was moving above five. Anyhow, my favorite funding source: the people and corporations to whom current real estate market issues helicopters.

        Every REAL Republican, like the ones who founded Metro, understood lifelong the importance of paying your maintenance bills.

        Mark

      2. That track was truncated about a half miles to the east of Central Lacey. If you look at Google Earth you can see its track; it runs down the middle of Pacific Avenue as “The Woodland Trail” between the two traffic circles and parallels Lacey Boulevard west of the westernmost traffic circle. I doubt Lacey is excited enough to have commuter rail service to give up its very central and widely used train.

        West of downtown Lacey the old BNSF The Woodland Trail continues as the main bike trail for Olympia-Lacey travelers.

    2. Mark,

      I doubt BNSF would allow that, because every scoot would have to cross both main tracks. The Bypass enters on the east side track (the traditional northbound when it was block signals) and the spur to Lacey connects to the west side track. That means that every scoot would foul both main tracks for about two miles. Warren is not going to let us mess up his railroad that much.

      And honestly, there is no reason for the train to go to Lacey. Just get WSDOT to put a north (“east”) bound shoulder lane for buses only from the Nisqually “north”side bridgehead to the weigh station and a new lane to the left of the left hand scale lane and transfer to Sounder at Dupont. It can’t be more than ten million dollars to add such a bus lane. And, “No”, it wouldn’t always work; sometimes the backup stretches all the way onto or across the Nisqually River bridge. If it gets to be a consistent problem, build another span directly south of the northbound roadway just for the buses. That certainly wouldn’t be cheap, but I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t be more than $25 million. There could be two routes, one to Evergreen State via downtown and one to Lacey and Tumwater. There could even be one from Yelm some day via Old Pacific Highway and SR 510.

      And finally, if the train ever does “go to Olympia”, it will certainly go via the Union Pacific spur, not the BNSF through Lacey. There’s no “there” left regarding the train through Lacey.

  10. I’ve decided to find the words to say to you all. It’s hard for reasons I won’t go into here.

    But here goes: Some of us grew up in the shadow of I-695. I did. Jessyn Farrell did. Most of STB Management did.

    I ask all of you to PLEASE join Jessyn & me in fighting I-947. This Thursday at 12:30 PM until 1:25 PM some of us will stand outside Sound Transit HQ and give moral support to Sound Transit – and openly debate anybody stupid enough to push this damn I-695, v2 down our throats.

    IT IS UP TO US. US AND US ALONE TO SAVE OUR TRANSIT DESTINY.

    You are ALL invited to join the Sound Transit Air Force and defend OUR Sound Transit, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST MAY BE!

    I have just enough juice for this… what about you? For without victory, there can be no survival of ST3. Of rising from the ashes of I-695.

    1. Is it possible to start another initiative, a counterinitiative that says something to the effect that “an MVET can be assessed in King, Pierce, and Snohomish.” I’d sign it.

    2. My first foray into politics was campaigning against I-695 back in the day at husky stadium. Started out with a morning of passing out leaflets followed by holding signs at Husky Stadium.

  11. Brings back memories of 1999… I could have seen this one coming. Although it again brings up a good question, at what point does a state initiative override local choice or should it be able to? Can I make an initiative that reads that all cities under 30,000 people on a state highway may not set their speed limit on the state highway below 40 MPH? I think on this case it would be a good thing to bring before the state supreme court. Of course I know Pierce County will say yes to it, as backwards as it is, plus as poorly served by Sound Transit we are. the ST district encompasses most if not all the UGA of the county, yet outside the cities proper there is no service which is a big sore spot down here. Lets hope this one dies, although I somehow doubt it wont (again).

    1. That highway initiative would be legal because cities derive their authority from the state. However, it can’t discriminate. It can’t say all cities except Mukilteo for instance because that would treat residents of some small cities unequally from other small cities. So it would all depend on whether the 10,000 threshold can be defended as a reasonable unbiased threshold that serves some compelling public interest. There’s a law prohibiting city library districts over 400,000 from merging with rural library districts. The purpose was to prevent Seattle Public Library from merging with the King County Library System, but the law couldn’t mention Seattle specifically or it would be unconstitutional, so it says “cities over 400,000”, of which Seattle is the only one.

      1. Interesting…so the “cities over 400,000” (of which there are precisely one) is a reasonable, unbiased threshold?

        “Unbiased” must not mean what it used to.

        (not a poke at you, Mike — just that the description the state uses seems a bit, uh, contradictory.)

      2. It’s actually 300,000 (raised from 100,000 in 2009, and 8,500 in 1981 — annexation originally allowed in 1977.). I suspect that the change in 2009 was made for Renton’s benefit.

  12. I’m sure it’s because I’m not from this area, but I really don’t understand the rabidness of the opposition to ST and transit in general. I have been reading this blog for some time now and enjoy the hell out of it, yet I don’t feel like I’ve entirely grasped what crawled up these peoples’ collective butts and died. ST3 was voter approved. Shouldn’t that be good enough? Does the sanctity of the vote mean nothing anymore? And why have the Democrats becoming so pusillanimous? Do they even believe in any of this? The care of the common good used to be a central value, especially among conservatives. Nothing makes sense to me anymore.

    1. I can think of a number of reasons, 1950s republican drive everywhere mentality, high sales taxes for transit (both local transit and ST), longstanding opposition to the unfair valuation of MVET taxes which the state legislature screwed up many years ago not fixing them, old and somewhat true still perceptions about ST not being able to deliver projects, inadequate service to some parts of the district (Long drives to full P&R lots), The suburbs have problems with Seattle running everything, Seattle has a problem with the suburbs wanting everything, Seattle is upset they are not getting everything they want/need at the suburbs expense. and to top it off you have multiple agencies that still don’t do a good job of coordinating well in-between each other (Sound Transit only serves Sound Transit P&Rs, some cities have multiple transit centers/P&R lots owned by multiple entities and none get well served in that scheme). Lots of reasons at ground level.

  13. Maybe Sound Transit shouldnt have been so greedy for something that’ll take a 100 years to complete and does zip for south Puget sound commuters to get in and out of Seattle.

    1. It’s a great thing there’re more people in the region than south Puget sound commuters, isn’t it?

  14. Eyman is [ad hom] who hates Transit. Voters should decline to sign his petitions, and he should be in jail for fraud.

Comments are closed.