Thursday, February 5, 2009
City Metro Ridership Sets Record! PANIC!!!!
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:08 PM
According to the latest numbers released by King County Metro, riders took an estimated 118 million trips on Metro buses in 2008—7 percent more trips than in 2007.
HOWEVER!! Lest you think that's good news, a Metro press release (which quotes Ron Sims—that guy's still around?) continues,
Transit agencies nationwide are experiencing circumstances similar to King County Metro, which has record ridership and an unprecedented financial crisis caused by volatile fuel prices and a steep drop in sales tax revenues. Executive Sims is seeking a one percent [motor-vehicle excise tax from the state legislature] for three reasons:Sustain current service that will be lost as sales tax revenues fall;
Significantly expand bus service countywide as the economy rebounds; and
Provide the new dedicated bus service necessary to address traffic congestion during and after construction of the proposed deep-bore tunnel.
Metro has asked state legislators for the authority to levy a one percent tax on car values every year when cars are relicensed, but has found little support; without the tax, Metro says, it will have to raise fares or cut back service.
Share via
1
Raising car license fees to pay for the bus? That makes about as much sense as raising bus fares to pay for new roads.
3
@1 it makes about as much sense as taxing polluters to pay for cleaning up pollution.
Vehicle excise taxes serve two purposes: they support infrastructure AND they compensate the public for the negative impact they have on the public: noise, reduced safety, fumes, carbon emissions, etc.
Since drivers add to the mess they are taxed in part to help pay for measures that mitigate the mess, just like polluters are taxed to help mitigate the effects of pollution.
Vehicle excise taxes serve two purposes: they support infrastructure AND they compensate the public for the negative impact they have on the public: noise, reduced safety, fumes, carbon emissions, etc.
Since drivers add to the mess they are taxed in part to help pay for measures that mitigate the mess, just like polluters are taxed to help mitigate the effects of pollution.
4
@1 ftw
How about we use future ridership projections, determine future costs, and divide ridership by costs to arrive at an appropriate fare price?
Seems to me like you pay to ride. Don't dump your costs for riding cheap back onto motorists.
I'm quite frankly tired of being incrementally dinged more and more to subsidize bus riders who should be paying more for their taxi ride around town.
Sorry but with this economy the free ride is over.
For everybody.
How about we use future ridership projections, determine future costs, and divide ridership by costs to arrive at an appropriate fare price?
Seems to me like you pay to ride. Don't dump your costs for riding cheap back onto motorists.
I'm quite frankly tired of being incrementally dinged more and more to subsidize bus riders who should be paying more for their taxi ride around town.
Sorry but with this economy the free ride is over.
For everybody.
5
@3 - If they want to compensate the public for noise, fumes, carbon, etc, then they should raise the taxes on gas. By just raising car fees, a person with a brand new Prius will pay more than a person with a 5-year old Suburban that gets 12mpg, and that also doesn't take into account how often a person drives.
By taxing gas, the people who drive and pollute the most will pay more, and people won't be punished for simply owning a car that they may not even drive on a daily basis.
By taxing gas, the people who drive and pollute the most will pay more, and people won't be punished for simply owning a car that they may not even drive on a daily basis.
6
@2, that's exactly what I was thinking. The last fare increase was just a week ago; time to raise fares again?
7
@3 PS - and I still don't see how that relates to the bus.
Paying for roads? Tax gas. Paying for the bus? Raise fares.
Paying for roads? Tax gas. Paying for the bus? Raise fares.
8
hey guys,
increased bus ridership is good for everyone -- for example, it reduces traffic which is good for all the selfish single-occupant commuters.
you probably would take the bus if you had to actually, you know, pay the true cost of driving. you realize that automobiles are the most heavily subsidized form of transportation, right? just think: all that parking you expect to be free or cheap. ten dollars an hour to park your car in front of your house! also, gas taxes only cover about 2/3 of the total cost of building the roads. let's put a toll on every single highway to cover the gap! or how about the emergency services devoted entirely to those who wreck their cars. let's stop subsidizing those who cannot figure out how to safely operate their vehicle!
so, like, your car hurts everyone else, so if you want to enjoy the privilege of driving it around, pay up to help mitigate those cost. don't drive if you don't wanna pay.
and if society makes it too hard to not drive, then blame six decades of systematically destroying public transportation options and, of course, a voting public extremely hostile towards paying for mass transit.
also, it would be interesting to find out how many metro riders ALSO own cars.
increased bus ridership is good for everyone -- for example, it reduces traffic which is good for all the selfish single-occupant commuters.
you probably would take the bus if you had to actually, you know, pay the true cost of driving. you realize that automobiles are the most heavily subsidized form of transportation, right? just think: all that parking you expect to be free or cheap. ten dollars an hour to park your car in front of your house! also, gas taxes only cover about 2/3 of the total cost of building the roads. let's put a toll on every single highway to cover the gap! or how about the emergency services devoted entirely to those who wreck their cars. let's stop subsidizing those who cannot figure out how to safely operate their vehicle!
so, like, your car hurts everyone else, so if you want to enjoy the privilege of driving it around, pay up to help mitigate those cost. don't drive if you don't wanna pay.
and if society makes it too hard to not drive, then blame six decades of systematically destroying public transportation options and, of course, a voting public extremely hostile towards paying for mass transit.
also, it would be interesting to find out how many metro riders ALSO own cars.
11
doug I'm in favor of public transit but your argument about paying for roads just doesn't add up. the taxes paid by the auto associated businesses more than makes up for gas tax shortages. every car in wa pays sales tax every time it changes owners. car repairs pay sales tax. tires sales tax. parking meters, parking lot taxes. for most of history car manufacturers paid corporate taxes. people that make their living in the business pay all sorts of taxes.
your logic of free parking would also mean that pedestrians should pay to walk on sidewalks. buses use streets and highways so they too are subsidized under your thinking.
in addition everyone gets benefit of trucks using the roads so really the idea that cars are subsidized by non users of roads is specious.
if you wish to say that car drivers don't pay as they go out of their pocket, okay, but car drivers pay their own way.
your logic of free parking would also mean that pedestrians should pay to walk on sidewalks. buses use streets and highways so they too are subsidized under your thinking.
in addition everyone gets benefit of trucks using the roads so really the idea that cars are subsidized by non users of roads is specious.
if you wish to say that car drivers don't pay as they go out of their pocket, okay, but car drivers pay their own way.
12
Gas tax funds are constitutionally restricted to roads, so we pay for transit costs from fares and sales tax. Fares have been increased significantly, but not enough to cover the funding gap brought about by decreased sales tax revenue (fares cover something like 20-25% of the costs...most of the funding is from the sales tax). I think that additional fare increases would likely cause riders who stopped using their cars due to high gas prices to stop taking the bus and return to increased car usage. Not only is gas cheaper again, the bus is more expensive...so why endure the longer commute/travel times if you're not going to save as much money?
Assuming we'll soon reach a point of diminishing returns with respect to fare increases (and there's currently no ability to raise the sales tax further), we'll have to cut service (or at least not expand it to keep up w/ demand) or raise revenue from another source. Car tabs seem like a reasonable source to me as we have lots of reasons to try to shift people from cars to transit--traffic congestion (one full bus could easily take 30 cars off the road), pollution, carbon emissions, to encourage more exercise, etc., but it seems that there's a lot of resistance to car tabs...mostly because you have pay them all at once unlike the sales tax which is just a bit at a time. Therefore, I think the best approach may be to charge modest tolls on key roadways and direct some of that revenue to transit.
Of course, people don't like tolls either. But I suspect that people will find that preferable to transit service cuts. The route 36 that I take is constantly packed and many other routes carry thousands/day. While some suggest this is a "free" "taxi-ride," that is obviously not the case. A taxi picks you up and takes you were you're going quickly w/ no stops "at cost." The same bus trip takes dramatically longer, but you only have to pay about 20% of the transportation cost. The subsidy is a necessary inducement to get people out of cars for the public benefits listed above. Demand for this service, which is really critical for our whole economy (imagine if there was no bus service to downtown...tens of thousands would have no realistic way to get to work), is increasing, so sooner or later there will be public support for tolling and/or car tabs to fund it. If we're smart, we'll do it sooner.
More...
Assuming we'll soon reach a point of diminishing returns with respect to fare increases (and there's currently no ability to raise the sales tax further), we'll have to cut service (or at least not expand it to keep up w/ demand) or raise revenue from another source. Car tabs seem like a reasonable source to me as we have lots of reasons to try to shift people from cars to transit--traffic congestion (one full bus could easily take 30 cars off the road), pollution, carbon emissions, to encourage more exercise, etc., but it seems that there's a lot of resistance to car tabs...mostly because you have pay them all at once unlike the sales tax which is just a bit at a time. Therefore, I think the best approach may be to charge modest tolls on key roadways and direct some of that revenue to transit.
Of course, people don't like tolls either. But I suspect that people will find that preferable to transit service cuts. The route 36 that I take is constantly packed and many other routes carry thousands/day. While some suggest this is a "free" "taxi-ride," that is obviously not the case. A taxi picks you up and takes you were you're going quickly w/ no stops "at cost." The same bus trip takes dramatically longer, but you only have to pay about 20% of the transportation cost. The subsidy is a necessary inducement to get people out of cars for the public benefits listed above. Demand for this service, which is really critical for our whole economy (imagine if there was no bus service to downtown...tens of thousands would have no realistic way to get to work), is increasing, so sooner or later there will be public support for tolling and/or car tabs to fund it. If we're smart, we'll do it sooner.
13
It's economics stupid. Raise the fucking fares. People will still pay them if it's their only means of transportation. Cutting service is ass backwards.
14
The exurbs will soon secede from King County, leaving hapless unemployed Seattlites to foot the bill for 19th "mass transit".
19
Anything non-commercial that gets less than 20 mpg gets taxed 10% extra...the idiots with the monster SUV's can either afford it, or will dump them for something more sensible.
Hummers get taxed 40%, primarily for being so fucking tacky.
Hummers get taxed 40%, primarily for being so fucking tacky.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS