March 14

"Plan B" vote to hike transit taxes arrives next month

Uncategorized

20  comments

The state Legislature gave up and went home Thursday night, having punted on most issues facing it.

Including transportation.

From our news partner The Seattle Times:

Last May’s Interstate 5 bridge collapse over the Skagit River was not enough to persuade the parties to come together to pass a long-negotiated, multibillion dollar transportation package.

Crosscut.com has a piece on the transportation flame-out here.

What’s this mean for us?

Next month we’ll be asked to substantially raise our local transit taxes. Or suffer serious cuts to Metro transit service next year, including the elimination of several routes that serve Maple Leaf.

Affected would be routes 41, 77, 73, 68, 306 … it goes on. The full list is here. Our report from December is here.

On the day all nine members of the King County Council voted to put the taxes on the April 22nd ballot, the Times reported:

King County voters will decide in April on a $60 car-tab fee and a tenth-of-a-cent sales-tax increase for roads and buses.

On Monday, the Metropolitan King County Council also passed a 25-cent fare increase for bus riders starting in 2015. Peak one-zone fares are $2.50 now, and peak-two-zone fares are $3.

The increases all make up a funding package the county pulled together to save King County Metro Transit from threatened service cuts of as much as 17 percent. The county had hoped the Legislature would act to save the bus system, but it didn’t.

That last-ditch plan was called “Plan B” from its onset. Plan A was the hope the Legislature, as it dealt with transportation, would give the county authority to use other varieties of taxes that aren’t as regressive as Plan B. One proposal involved a county-only, car-tab tax based on a vehicle’s value.

At the end of February, Melanie, a neighbor and Maple Leaf bus commuter, wrote us to encourage support for the April measure, pointing out cuts would affect many University of Washington employees and students, “many of whom live in Maple Leaf.

“I think not many folks are aware this is coming up so soon” as the April 22 ballot, she wrote.

About the author 

Sara W

You may also like

Sephora coming to Ballard Blocks 2

Sephora coming to Ballard Blocks 2

Self-Defense Class

Self-Defense Class

Fall Budget // Accountability Partners on SPD’s Crowd Control Policies // Internet for All // COVID Rental Assistance // Community News You Can Use

Fall Budget // Accountability Partners on SPD’s Crowd Control Policies // Internet for All // COVID Rental Assistance // Community News You Can Use

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I’ve grieved before. I know that if I had just talked to my boss about it, it would’ve been a five minute conversation. Instead, she spent considerable time emailing her boss and gathering evidence. And my union rep didn’t do a damn thing except show up for the grievance meeting.

    Without a union, the company would’ve spent less time on administrative tasks and my paycheck would’ve been larger. My punishment would’ve been the same.

    I am aware that this is not always the situation, however you shouldn’t dismiss it outright. And go read ATU’s newsletters and learn about how much time they spend grieving and appealing.

  2. See, that’s just normal job stuff. If the people are all employees already, there will be minimal extra costs. Not seeing a lot of savings there, especially because you have no data, just simply an opinion with nothing to back it up.

  3. Dan, no, but I think it’s a given that a grevience would involve at least:
    * The employee
    * The union rep
    * The employee’s supervisor
    And possibly the supervisor’s supervisor. Plus all the time that the supervisor(s) spend prepping for the meeting.

    With a simple complaint, the supervisor can just deal with it. With a grievance, they’ll spend a lot of time compiling evidence to make it “fair”. But the burden of evidence is still far lower than what you’d expect in a courtroom–even a hearing for an infraction.

  4. Tim, do you have any data to back up the claim that they are spending thousands of dollars in admin costs on grievances? Or that they wouldn’t still have admin costs related to worker complaints? I know people like to whine about unions a lot, but ultimately there isn’t a lot of costs savings there and I’d hate to strip workers of their rights with no major benefit. I’d rather see real suggestions on how Metro could make significant savings or generate more revenue.

  5. Dan, even if the drivers had the same pay and benefits, de-unionizing would have significant cost savings: Not only would employees not have to give part of their paychecks to a third party but Metro would save thousands of dollars in administrative costs not having to deal with grievances.

  6. How will “getting the unions” out of Metro save us money? It won’t, unless you couple taking away Metro employee’s right to unionize with also cutting their pay and benefits. I don’t really see that as an option voters would get behind. I’d rather see streamlined routes and higher fees to ride the buses, make the people using the service pay for it more.

  7. I honestly haven’t spent time with transit issues but my concern is it will be impossible to manage growth without a healthy transit system. In fact growth is dependent on it. Tell your lawmakers growth will not be accepted unless this area becomes more walkable and transit friendly.

  8. @Tim, I agree that consolidation can have benefits – frequency on one street can be nice, but the cuts in service will have major costs too.

    It’s not just the 66, 67, and 68 eliminations that will impact Maple Leaf. Anyone going north from UW will also be affected by the loss of the 72 and the 71 not serving UW anymore. People who currently take the 71, 72, 73, 66, 67, and 68 north from UW will all be on the Route 73. The 8-minute frequency won’t equal the amount of service being loss on all five routes. Also, consolidating service will mean a lot of folks will have much further to walk to get the bus – more of an issue for some folks than others.

  9. The proposed cuts would actually make it easier to commute from Maple Leaf to the UW. Instead of 66, 67, 68, 73 we’d have just the 73, which would shift to Roosevelt and run every 8 minutes. Right now it’s annoying having to walk to 5th, Roosevelt or 15th depending on which route might come next.

    Route 77 won’t change. Route 41 will have its last trip (or two) of the night deleted.

    Route 242 would be eliminated but the trip would still be possible with a transfer.

  10. Yes, the car tab fee was a Band-Aid method designed to get us through until the legislature provided better funding tools – which it failed to do. Also, please note that 40% of the funding in Prop 1 goes to road maintenance – if you use the roads, this benefits you.

    Regarding efficiency, Metro has taken several actions to cut costs, including waiving cost of living increases for drivers and even cutting bus driver breaks. See info from Metro’s website below.

    Transit service benefits all of us – by freeing up space on the roads, reducing air pollution, and providing folks without other options a way to get around. My mom is 75 and soon won’t be able to drive anymore – Metro is how she will get around. That will be all of us one day. Students are another group depending on the bus. I work at UW – where 46% of students depend on the bus to get to class. Transit is good for all of us.

    http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/faq.html#q-belt-tightening

    The following actions were taken from 2009 through 2013 to reduce costs, boost revenue, and preserve bus service.

    Productivity/efficiency actions—saved $204 million ($93 million ongoing annual savings)
    ◾Efficiency actions recommended by 2009 performance audit, including changing bus schedules to reduce bus downtime.
    ◾Negotiated agreements with employees that reduced the growth of pay through furloughs and pay freezes.
    ◾Elimination of more than 100 staff positions that did not directly affect service.
    ◾Elimination of 75,000 hours of less-used bus service and adopted new service guidelines as part of our strategic plan.
    ◾Deferral of 350,000 hours of planned service expansion.

  11. @Sarah Yes, that car tab fee was a 2-year deal. This tax increase would replace that. They claim they’ve made more efficiencies but I don’t know if I’m buying what they’re selling.

  12. Next time there is a “Snow Event” and the government asks all non essential personnel to stay home, fire those non essential personnel. Problem solved.

    I apologize in advance to those who take offense and to those who can’t take a joke.

  13. Not that I’m against bus service (although I admittedly don’t use it), but I swear we just had a car tab hike two years ago for this same reason. Am I mistaken?

  14. I am not voting for another tax increase. If we don’t have the money for adequate bus service, so be it. Our neighbors to the north and south have cut service and it did not spell the apocalypse. Might be good for King County Metro to downsize! I’m thinking a 30% reduction is in order with the elimination of all Sunday/Holiday Service and most Saturday evening service. Maybe with this reduction, they can cut our taxes!

  15. I must say that those that are wasting our taxdollars should be held liable fo rtheir buffoonery. Get the Unions OUT and start making wise decisions with out money. Why are we punishing our populace with more taxes for a poorly ran entity that should be more efficient than it is. Throwing taxpayers money at this isnt a great idea. Throw the taxmoney wasting buffoons under the bus, not those that are finding it.

  16. The average transit rider makes more per year than the average transit tax payer. Time to stop this regressive tax

    Metro must become more efficient before getting additional funding.

  17. Thanks for posting this story Mike. For readers in the area who don’t take the bus, it’s worth thinking about what cuts in bus service could mean for traffic. I take the 72, 73, and 373 on 15th Ave and they are almost always packed – I’d estimate maybe 75 people per bus. If we don’t save Metro, many of those folks will switch to driving, clogging up the roads. (When you see one bus, picture 75 cars in its place, and how much space that takes up.)

    And for the folks who don’t have the option to drive – neighbors who may be low-income, elderly, students, etc. – they are losing a lifeline.

    The fees are not the first choice (hence Plan B), but the worst option would be to cut bus service.

  18. Before we raise taxes or fares, or cut service, we should get the unions out of Metro. This would save us lots of money and prevent any service cuts.

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Subscribe to our newsletter now!