Tagged: transit;prop 1; Seattle buses
- 04/16/2014 at 8:40 pm #64439
ChicksterParticipant04/16/2014 at 10:30 pm #64442
Here is a link to a short debate on King where both sides are represented.
http://www.king5.com/home/Debate-on-King-County-Prop-1-255425761.html04/16/2014 at 11:13 pm #64443
Thanks for the link to both C’s!
I do find it interesting that a measure that both sides agree disproportionately hurts lower income citizens is being proposed to run for 10 years, not for 2 or 4 years while a better solution is worked out.04/16/2014 at 11:37 pm #64444
You hit on my concern exactly Mondo. Public transit has always existed, on one level, as a source of transportation for the low-income. The cost of a single ride or a monthly pass is becoming unreachable for many of the impoverished. This proposal does nothing to alleviate that. Instead, by being a user-fee, it transfers much of the burden to those who are barely making it at low to moderate incomes.04/17/2014 at 11:03 am #64453
According to the Seattle Transit Blog:
“Although a vehicle license fee and sales tax would not be our first choice, they are the only option for the County; moreover, a low-income license fee rebate and low-income fare will largely blunt the impact on low-income car owners and leave low-income bus riders significantly better off.”04/17/2014 at 4:19 pm #64493
I agree that the low-income fare is a good idea; sadly, the fee rebate only covers $20 out of the $60 fee. Anyone know what the income cutoff will be for the low-income fare?04/17/2014 at 4:54 pm #64494
A $40 fee for someone making minimum wage and driving a 1996 Civic compared to a $60 fee for someone making $150.000+ and driving a Lexus – that is a regressive tax.
Prop 1, as printed on the ballot, does not give an income cutoff for a low-income fare or even actually mention a low-income fare. The documentation behind Prop 1 is contained in Resolution TD2014-03 of the King County Council. Just read it all and it also does not contain language relating to a low-income fare (that I could find). There may well be intent for a low-income fare but it doesn’t appear to be mandated (and the devil is in the details).04/17/2014 at 5:00 pm #64495
You 99 percenters make me sick! Just pay for my gas and get off my damn bus already! You collectivists ruin everything for people like me who work harder than everyone else.04/18/2014 at 8:40 am #64531
Cate, more info on the low-income fare is on Metro’s website, here:
“The reduced fare would be available to adult riders with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level—about $23,000 in annual income for an individual. This is the most widely used income guideline by government agencies for determining eligibility for assistance and services. King County would work with local and state service providers to determine the most accessible and cost-effective way to verify program eligibility. Eligible individuals would have to requalify for this fare program periodically.”
The ordinance (2014-0038) was adopted on Feb 24 by the full King County Council, and includes a provision that the low-income fare will be $1.25 if Prop 1 passes, $1.50 if it does not.04/18/2014 at 10:26 am #64543
Raising fees/taxes to save 74 bus routes (including my favorite the 28) and keep a potential 30,000 cars from adding to the traffic in my commute to and from work? I am all for it. I am definitely voting yes on Prop 1.
I’m usually for anything that discourages driving cars and encourages mass transit/walking/cycling as a means of getting around.
Two of the most common things I see people complaining about in this forum are the amount of traffic and lack of parking. I’m surprised that anyone here would vote for increasing the traffic.
Here’s an article from the Vote Yes side: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/grab-your-ballot-save-bus-service-do-it-now/Content?oid=1918173404/18/2014 at 8:15 pm #64632
DrewJ – Thanks for the link. Missed the KC Council voting on that. I highly approve of that decision, but, that seems to be completely independent of Prop 1. The council approves fare changes without the need for a Prop. (Of course, they may be playing the game of trying to get Prop 1 passed, in least in part, to pay for what they already approved.)
I do believe in public transit as a vital part of the community “safety net” but remain conflicted on Prop 1.04/18/2014 at 9:54 pm #64637
it’s a NO-brainer… to vote YES that is!04/18/2014 at 11:06 pm #64639
I am very uncertain about this prop. Just seems to me that Seattlites are a bit too trusting and shortsighted about some of these measures.04/18/2014 at 11:31 pm #64640
From a policy person friend of mine in response to a what-are-you-going-to-vote question:
“Welcome to Washington. Fight fiercely against our tax structure, but until we can alter it, one just has to pinch their nose and accept it for what it is – utterly regressive. But you know? Cutting transit will affect the same population most affected by our fucked-up tax structure. Vote yes! I can’t say it louder: vote yes! Vote yes!”04/19/2014 at 1:10 am #64643
Yes, and keep voting yes so it never gets “altered”. Sad.04/19/2014 at 1:58 am #64644
How is it that such a “progressive” state as Washington, has one of the most regressive tax structures?04/19/2014 at 7:59 am #64645
It’s refreshing to have people actually discussing how regressive our tax system is. That is so true!
However, voting against this is not an effective way to fix our tax system. It just punishes us by eliminating buses and crowding the (unrepaired) roads but leaves the tax system in place. So then we’re doubly suffering.
Then tell your legislators your want Washington to have a less regressive tax system. Or better still, work to get a ballot measure going to reform our tax structure.04/19/2014 at 9:56 am #64652
King County asked the Legislature for the opportunity to vote on a means to make this a non-regressive tax. Apparently, it’s against conservative principles to be able to vote on public policy priorities, so the Senate wouldn’t do it (thanks, Rodney, hope you enjoy retirement!). Any attempt to fix the regressive tax system needs to start with the Legislature and will end with a public vote. That means either working for legislative campaigns in suburban districts and/or working on initiative campaigns. In the meantime, not making the system any worse would be a good thing.
By the way, the editorial in the Times is internally inconsistent. Among other things, it complains about impacts on the poor, then suggests fare increases as a remedy. Other editorials against have focused on Metro’s farebox return numbers. Metro’s is infinitely higher than I-5’s farebox return, but nobody seems to worry about that.
If you hadn’t figured it out by now, I say vote yes.04/19/2014 at 10:24 am #64654
OK, I’ll admit I didn’t understand this: “Metro’s is infinitely higher than I-5′s farebox return”. Maybe I’m still groggy.04/19/2014 at 12:05 pm #64658
Translation: At least Metro brings in some income, unlike I-5 (and most, if not all, other roads to be repaired in this bill)
(Good one, boatgeek!)04/19/2014 at 1:21 pm #64660
Already voted for the measure. Kind of the lesser of two devils proposition.
+1 boatgeek, GAM on the farebox return ;)
I will be glad to see Rodney “DINO” Tom go away, but hold no hope for the state senate. They probably could have passed something without the pork barrel bridge over the Columbia, but nobody had the guts to remove it.04/19/2014 at 4:48 pm #64671
I guess I’m pretty thick today — wouldn’t I-5 have 100% “farebox recovery”, because the tripsters pay for the “bus” and its gas and maintenance and insurance and driver?04/19/2014 at 6:37 pm #64675
Please ignore my post immediately above — I was severely humor-challenged after spending many hours reading through a long statistics-theory-heavy report; it was so heavy, I apparently broke my humerus.04/21/2014 at 4:40 pm #64749
However your voting, remember to get them in the mail by Tuesday! That’s tomorrow.04/21/2014 at 7:04 pm #64777
Or the drop box in front of the library!
The forum ‘Open forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.