After its sales tax revenues fell off the edge of the Earth in the wake of the Great Recession, the plan to save Metro bus service from devastating cuts was pretty simple: we needed to move back to a stable, sufficient, and progressive Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET)—a tax on the value of your car. But to do this, we needed permission from Olympia, and legislators insisted that they would only grant the county that authority after implementing money saving reforms.
That was Plan A: reform Metro’s practices and levy an MVET.
And so limping along on a temporary $20 car tab fee and the last of its reserve funds, Metro did what it was told. Inefficient routes were cut or consolidated, bus drivers gave back cost-of-living increases, capital investments were canceled or deferred, fares were repeatedly raised, management was trimmed, and business practices were reformed. Metro was the target of multiple county, state, and independent performance audits, and subsequent reports have all lauded Metro for following through on money-saving recommendations. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been saved.
By all accounts Metro satisfied Olympia’s demands, and yet legislators have refused to live up to their end of the bargain. Not because Metro didn’t do enough—there’s been no suggestion of that—but because Republicans have been holding Metro’s MVET authority hostage in the service of forcing through a roads-heavy, anti-transit statewide transportation funding package. They need our votes to pass a gas tax increase their constituents don’t want, and so they won’t give us our local option MVET unless and until this statewide package is approved. Which, thanks to the dysfunction in the state senate, won’t happen anytime soon.
And so the county decided to use the less progressive taxing authority it already had. We moved on to Plan B: $60 car tabs and a tenth of a cent sales tax increase.
You can question the wisdom of pursuing Plan B during a low-turnout special election, but we’d pretty much run out of time. County voters yesterday rejected Proposition 1. So service cuts are now coming. It’s unavoidable.
But just because county voters as a whole refuse to tax themselves to pay for the services they need, doesn’t mean that pro-transit Seattle voters need to shoulder their full share of the cuts. That’s why it’s time to pursue Plan C: Seattle needs to buy back proposed cuts on in-city routes.
Under the reforms demanded by the state and others, Metro revised and rationalized the way it evaluates route performance, devising a strict formula to guide reducing or expanding service. Now that Prop 1 has failed (and the legislature seems no closer to passing a transportation package), Metro will soon finalize its list of service cuts, giving Seattle the opportunity to consider which service reductions it might want to defer. Each service cut would produce a corresponding cost savings. And that would be the cost to Seattle of preserving that service.
King County voters may have rejected a car tab fee, but dollars to donuts Seattle voters did not. A $20, $40, or even $60 city car tab to save city bus service probably stands a better chance at the polls, particularly if we schedule the vote for the higher-turnout 2014 general election.
Is it a sure thing? No. Is it the proper way to fund regional transit? Of course not—it doesn’t begin to address the tens of thousands of commuters crossing the city line (though we could always choose to subsidize some of those routes too). But remember, this isn’t Plan A. It isn’t even Plan B. It’s Plan Fucking C, for chrisakes. It’s what we reluctantly resort to only when the two better plans have already failed.
The only alternative is doing nothing. And given Seattle’s transportation needs, that’s not a plan Seattle can afford to pursue.
…Metro is going to start slashing bus service this summer. There’s just no other choice.
http://horsesass.org/fuck-the-...../#comments
Soooo…..
After 13 hours of navel-gazing, it turns out that there are choices, after all?
On KUOW this morning, Joni Balter referred to a ‘credibility gap’ that Metro proponents have right now.
This is one reason why.
@1…
Seems like shithead here didn’t read Goldy’s article.
(of course there’s no outrage over the lying fucks at McDonnel-Boeing)
@1 Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just assume that everybody else does?
@2 Oh, wait for it, Boeing will move production to South Carolina or some other third world shithole because the voters here didn’t tax themselves for road repairs. You know, they can’t move those big airplane sections around by truck if streets are full of potholes.
Voter turn out was horrible. 17% voted against the ballot measure.
Why, in a democracy (blah blah stanford blah oligarchy, I know), are we controlled by a tiny minority of the population?
@3
Did you get any air time last night?
Regarding your question, I comprehend at least as well as your average Metro driver, I suppose.
I’m just pleased to see your effort to start working the problem within the boundaries of its new reality, now that shaking down the county electorate the old way seems not to be working so well. I encourage you to be just as creative with your proposed solutions to the Metro funding shortfall as you are with your suggestions of various ways to look at the $15 minimum wage issue.
How about a tip jar for the drivers, which Metro can use to defray some of its labor costs, for instance? Aren’t Metro drivers worth as much as a barista? You tip your cabbie, don’t you? Why not tip the Metro driver as well?
If everyone did that, that would be, what, 10 or maybe 15% more revenue coming in right next to the fare box? At minimum, you probably wouldn’t think employer wage theft was such a bad thing.
Time for Hoopty to Shine! Maybe some future Hoopty drivers have a an old bus or two rusting out in their backyard-let’s get those babies running and expand the options Hoopty can provide.
@6…
Yeah, Bickle.
Brave champion of the “let them eat cake” crowd.
Real stand-up guy.
San Francisco Municipal Railway has an interesting alternative funding measure. A ballot initiative gave them access to parking revenue, both taxes, fines. I believe MUNI gets some sales tax revenue from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, but I am not sure.(In California, most transit agencies don’t have direct sales tax revenue, it comes from other forms of governance. One exception I believe, is the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, but that is because they merged the planning body, into the MTA)
unlikely-plan-D-notion: have our representatives in Olympia earmark all Seattle-collected marijuana tax revenues toward Seattle public transportation (“bud for buses” or some-such)
(“that’s not legal” “republicans will block it” “Olympia?! they’re the twits that got us into this mess” ..ok/sigh)
Although I am for transit, I voted against this proposition because, as proven, Sales Tax is regressive and unsustainable in nature. We need to fund transit not on the backs of the poor, but through an income tax on the highly-paid workers migrating to the city or on the corporations that are bringing them here.
@11 You must live in the Other Seattle where the city/county/state has the power to implement these taxes.
From now on I am only going to vote for taxes that let you pay them in goods such as old tvs and blenders. It really is regressive and unsustainable to tax sales or income, what if you lose your job? We need to fund transit not on the backs of the employeed, but through a bartered goods tax on those who have enough money after rent,insurance, and food to buy consumer goods.
@9 What the heck…it’s a lead pipe cinch that all the private downtown parking facilities are going to jack their rates, Yanno…supply and demand AKA “the wisdom of the marketplace”.
Raise the cost of bus fare.
@14 If we’re going to make people pay full freight, then while you’re at it, raise fines on corporate polluters too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/du.....-too-much/
There is a logical way step to go along with the city tax ….
Since Seattle is a hub that is used by a lot of folks outside Seattle, then why not use the real estate tax to fund Seattle Transit AND have heft fair INCREASE for the free loader from outside Seattle?
If WE are paying for the busses, why should folks from Issaquah get to ride them for free?
13)It wasn’t politicians that thought of it, but a group called RescueMuni. They also created a new governing body, the Municipal Transportation Agency, put MUNI and the Department of Parking and Traffic under it’s authority.