Evening Fizz from Olympia: Metro Funding Bill Now in Trouble

If Gregoire would get up off her ass and actually doing something for transit, for once, maybe the House leadership would schedule the bill for a vote. It's unbelievable that environmentalists actually bothered to campaign for Gregoire's reelection because when it comes to the state's biggest environmental problem- transportation (think both climate pollution and run-off into Puget Sound) – Gregoire is as at least as bad as Rossi, if not worse.

I busted my ass to reelect Gregoire in 2008. I would not lift a finger for her again. If I'd wanted a Dino Rossi budget, I would've voted for Dino Rossi.

With SB-6130 assaulting free speech (I-960) and a Tea Party march of tens of thousands today, law makers are loathe to stick their necks out for new taxes. I just wrote mine telling them to keep theirs in the ostrich hole.

Oh please. If you think this is a “Dino Rossi Budget” you are hopelessly naive.

We're in a recession in a state whos tax base is heavily dependent on the poor and middle class, many of whom are out of work, thus we have a reduced tax base.

Consequently, some cuts have to happen, and yes it's going to impact those who pay the most of their income into the government, but that's the way we roll in this state. Can't expect the rich to step up and do their part, after all.

But we can round up a bunch of morons and cranks, put a few of them in Revolutionary War era costumes and mouth some platitudes at them. It looks great on the TV.

The City of Seattle is causing problems for this bill. Besides the usual transit haters, the city is whining that giving Metro this authority will prevent the city from imposing a similar fee itself. I've heard the city is trying to work on a compromise, but this late in the game (just before a cutoff), the irony is that transit friendly Seattle is screwing transit.

@jabailo

Tens of thousands of flat-earthers, sorry “tea partiers?” You must have been at a different state capitol yesterday.

The pro-revenue crowd was double the size of the troglodyte freak-show, and it barely numbered in the 2-3,000 range.

ON this issue, these are the same types of lame excuses Frank comes up with on a regular basis. Remember the convenient distraction they found to kill “worker privacy” last year?

But they've got colonial costumes!!! Doesn't that mean the founding fathers would approve of them?

Liar. There were about 500-600 teabaggers at the demonstration in Olympia yesterday. I was there and counted the crowd, and three several state patrol officers confirmed my estimate at three different points around the Capitol steps.
-
In contrast, there were about 5,500 people in the rally for the state to raise more revenue and stave off cuts. State Patrol also confirmed this figure.
-
Quit your crap, Bailo. go back to Sound Politics and your amen chorus.
-
As for you, Morgan, go study civics. The Governor is REQUIRED BY LAW to submit a balanced budget to the Legislature. Your ignorance of the law is no excuse. Learn something about separation of powers and this state's legal framework before making stupid statements and putting yourself in the Bailo class.

OK, Bailo, I get that you weren't talking about yesterday. We'll see how many you get today.

lol. I guess that's the logic.

Anyway, @ivan, above, may have an even better handle on the numbers. I took a guess from what I saw through the Capitol doors.

It makes sense for a city, any city, to preserve its taxing authority for its own projects and priorities. Seattle had plans for that revenue and they felt that the package had been largely agreed upon without consulting them.

That said, I wish they had swallowed their pride and agreed to a private “you owe me” rather than taking the discussion to an already tax-averse legislature.

If you give Chopp and Kessler even the smallest window to do the wrong thing, they will.

The City of Seattle was planning to use that taxing authority for one of the following: implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan, implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, light rail from West Seattle to Ballard – or, if you talk with Council, the DBT.

I don't get the argument on either side. Not all taxes are bad and not all taxes are good. IMO, throwing another 1% in sales taxes down the rat hole of the general fund for “emergency” funding when its crystal clear that the structural deficits will exist for some time is silly. However, allowing local governments the authority to impose small car fees for transit service is a good investment in transportation infrastructure is a good idea.

I wholly agree with the second half of your statement.

Until Metro ditches 40-40-20 I could care less about their funding issues. They do not provide a service that is useful to me, despite living very close to downtown, and waste far to much on unproductive routes.

Am I missing something here? Is there no King County Representative willing to sponsor this thing? Marko is from Snohomish County.

The City of Seattle's multi-modal and light rail plans are great. Problem is they won't be effective if Metro Bus Service is cut by 50% in the City, which it will be if Metro doesn't find new revenue in the next two years. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

It would be great for Publicola to ask House Leadership what factors specifically killed the bill.

I don't think 40-40-20 is a wise policy either. But it's also not the reason you don't have the level service you desire. 40-40-20 only effects new, additional service. So, when the policy was enacted earlier in the decade, Seattle had a little less than 2/3 of the service. Since there has not been that much new service added, Seattle still gets a bit less than 2/3 of Metro service.

Don't get me wrong, 40-40-20 is still bad policy, but it has not made much of a difference so far. More importantly, the County Council just voted to create a Metro Task Force to look at how to better allocate Metro service to meet the county's growth management goals, among other objectives. So, 40-40-20 will not likely be policy for much longer and many of the less productive routes are likely to disappear within the next two years.

It may not be the cause, but it certainly does not make me want to give Metro more money so they can piss it way like they do with far to much of what they have now.

I am personally quite tired of voting for every transit tax increase and supporting pro-transit politicians only to get absolutely nothing. I mean I'll have a light rail line near my house next decade assuming I am still living there, but other than that I see nothing.

Metro is a dysfunctional agency.

They've adopted most of the recommendations from last year's performance audit. The County has created the task force to examine remaining systemic issues. Dow Constantine and Deputy Exec Fred Jarrett are more than committed to addressing these issues, including 40-40-20. What else do you want the county to do? (That's a real, not rhetorical, question)

I guess I want to see results and see Metro shift service to where it is used. I guess what I really want is concrete personal improvement on the routes I could use. Right now I have unreliable service that is far to infrequent and crowded so I rarely if ever ride the bus and when I do I regret it. It should also be faster than walking which it is not now.

Oh and no way should it cost me the same to ride the bus a mile as it does to ride for over 20 on the Eastside. Metro's zone system is nonsensical and makes the bus the most costly of all my commuting options including driving my car.

Agreed. If the City of Seattle had any role in stopping this bill, I'll be upset. Yes, we need pedestrian and bike improvements and light rail, but we also need bus service!

Plus, the bill could have helped transit riders in other counties – like Snohomish, where Community Transit is cutting all its Sunday service.

Publicola: Please try and figure out why the bill died.

Yup. And there is only so much room for Metro as a political entity to take funds from County residents to increase Seattle transit service. I know close-in routes (I'm a regular 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 26, 28, 43, 48 rider among others) tend to be crowded, but Seattle has been buying additional service and things are a bit better. I don't think it's realistic to expect Metro to do a lot more with their current revenue and political constraints. Even 40-40-20, as Bill says, isn't the real problem. If the task force is smart, we'll actually see an emphasis on serving corridors where people want to (and are) taking transit; if McGinn can do what he said in today's speech and really improve transit priority on Seattle streets, that'll go a very long way toward making things run better as well.