I would’ve voted yes if I thought I could trust the county to actually distribute the money to cities like it should. It can’t be. The residents of my city are paying on a light rail initiative that was voted in based on the promise of light rail being extended here. It passed (I voted a resounding YES). Pretty quickly after it passed, the county said oh, they couldn’t afford to do it. My city sued the county and the best we got out of it was light rail coming here in something ridiculous like 2040. It’s a poorer city and the county wants light rail to go to Bellevue/Redmond instead, and doesn’t care if we’re paying for it based on a lie.
If they hadn’t pulled the light rail crap I would’ve voted yes, but as it is, I don’t trust those bastards and neither do a lot of other people.
That does seem a bit excessive. But that wasn’t the situation in the case I’m referencing. $60 car tabs. That’s it. Apparently that was too much for some selfish S.o.B.s.
Well, as a matter of fact, they’ve been doing that. For several years, now. But I think they feel that they’ve put enough of the burden on the actual riders of the transit system and decided to put more of the onus on the population as a whole. Remember this all came about because my state’s legislature wasn’t able to come up with a new transportation package. For that I blame all the selfish S.o.B.s in my state’s legislature.
Well, an analysis of the cost and the benefit would be a cost/benefit analysis.
Since Do Not Taunt is correct, it’s $60 per car plus .1% sales tax. How much is that per resident? That is your cost.
Benefits. Tell me* what happens to Metro without the money. Tell me which routes, at what times. Tell me how many riders are expected to be dropped from service, how many additional cars are expected to hit the streets and use the parking. What is the impact on commute times, for bus riders and others?
This is also a tax increase that is not progressive, it is going to hit the lower middle class pretty hard, and the wealthy get hit much less as a % of income. I’m not sure I would support hitting that population hardest to fund something to benefit society as a whole.
*Well, not “me” specifically because I live 3,000 miles away and have no skin in this game.
I think I read there was a low-income refund on the $60 tab fee (of course all will pay the addtional .1% sales tax). So, maybe a bit more progressive than you think?
Very few people have warm fuzzy feelings for their transportation authority and for good reason.
I grew up in NYC and all those tolls on the bridges and tunnels between Manhattan and the outer burroughs was supposed to phase out after they paid back the bonds used to build them. The bonds went away but the tolls never did.
Corruption is rampant in state and local governments and transportation agencies are particularly susceptible to corruption there is so much money thrown to contractors and real estate developers have a vested interest in how transportation is developed. It sucks but its better than not having public transportation.
Reading some local articles on this subject, a lot of the comments are about “sending a message”.
I can’t find a link to the actual ballot measure to post, just a long Word file, but this wasn’t all that progressive. There was a $20 low-income rebate, no stipulation on what “low income” would mean.
Another case about the transportation morons in the county. About two years ago, there were fancy electronic bus schedule reader boards placed every few blocks for about a two-mile stretch on the main highway through the city. There are even more in other places along this highway. They look like something at the airport. While they’re helpful and a nice luxury, aren’t more routes and support for low income fares more important in this era of budget crisis?? I can’t find a cost for this project, but I’m sure it wasn’t inexpensive. Kind of ironic when you think about it. Fewer people riding fewer buses, but at least they’re well-informed!
Here is a mapof how different voting districts in King County went on this prop. Basically, the more urban, the more inclined the district was to vote for the proposition. King County is a large county, and constitutes a mix of urban (Seattle and close-in suburbs), suburban (Bellevue, Redmond, etc) and functioning forest and farmland out in the east.
Seattle is likely to see an initiative in the fall to increase property taxes on city residents to fund transit just within the city. This is actually a good way to go: it’ll probably pass, property taxes are a more stable and progressive funding source than flat vehicle fees and sales taxes, and may mitigate the worst of the cuts in the part of the county where transit is most critical. Since rural folks are so unwilling to support urban transit issues, I would like to see them take more responsibility for paying for their own roads in the future.