Being a public servant sometimes requires difficult and complicated decisions. So I would like to share with you my thinking on the issue of the Congestion Relief Fee. I can tell you it would be easy to say NO at this point, but in six months when we are all sitting in gridlock with no bus options and thousands of more cars in front of us, would we be happy that I took the "easy" vote.
Here is the background of many weeks of thinking and reading and studying. I do not take my job lightly that you have given me and spent most of my vacation working on this issue.
Situation
Metro is funded by sales tax revenues mostly. In 2010 the revenue to pay for bus service was down $149 million as projected and $72.8 million below the 2008 level of funding. The difficult economic times affect so many aspects of life. So Metro has made $400 million in cuts over the last two years. For each of the last four years they have increased the fare box share of the ride so that the riders have had their fare increase by $500. This has increased the fare box recovery of riders paying directly for their rides to nearly 30% from 18% earlier (the policy target was 25%, so riders now pay more than the original target).
We have used reserves, stopped Cost of Living Increases, and worked very closely with the employees to find efficiencies and improve routes. But the gap between available and needed funds to run the bus system is still huge. To cover the gap would have required a 17% cut across the board in service.
In our area the funding gap would have been 43,000 hours of service and in Bellevue 86,000 hours. So the eastside would have had a decrease of over 120,000 hours. We are seeing overall a 5% increase in ridership countywide and an 11% increase in the Hwy. 520 corridor.
Car Tab Source from Olympia
SB 5457 and HB 1536 companion bills
The car tab source is not a source that would be my preference. Nor is it my preference to raise taxes. However, there are times when you have to make very difficult choices - some harder than others. This one is most difficult because we are in hard economic times and because of the car tabs are so unpopular. So let me tell you the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey use to say.
The car tab revenue source was the only source the legislature gave the county to use to help keep the buses running. Three counties went in to Olympia to get help with their transportation system. The Senate Transportation Committee reviewed all the reductions and changes all three counties had made. Only King County came out as having made enough improvements and changes to be given this temporary (two year) funding source because the experts there felt that the next set of cuts would be too devastating to the transportation system. So we were stuck with that being the funding source.
Senate bill SB 5457 said that the council should try to find a solution to this problem collaboratively with six votes. That made it possible that no one group could dominate but it had to be an open fair process. Then SB 5457 said if they could not come up with a plan, then it was to go to a vote of the people. It is a temporary fee for two years. It also says that after June 30,2014 that if the fee is to continue it MUST go to a vote of the people. So increasing car tabs is not "to go against the will of the people,” but to respond to the new law passed in Olympia.
This bill was supported in Olympia by Rep. Goodman, Rep. Springer, Rep. Judy Clibborn who is State Transportation Chair and many others and was passed into law (It is only three pages long so easy to read and the link is above.)
Then raising taxes during a recession is not a favored idea. However, the alternative has to be evaluated too. The alternative of 17% less buses and the greatest reduction being on the eastside as we have less density than most of the rest of the county was not a good idea either.
Transit Committee
The transit committee made up of about 26 citizens from across the county came up with a number of plans to improve Metro and to make it more efficient. That committee set the standard of productivity as one of the main goals. The less densely populated an area is the more difficulty you have meeting that target.
So the eastside would be the hardest hit in reductions. So we looked at another goal of regional equity to see how we could use that goal. They developed a plan called alternative sources which is now called "right sizing.”
Right sizing establishes the right size bus, van, etc. to meet the needs of that community so they would not have empty large buses going through their community but right sized vehicles saving money to keep the bus hours of service to citizens. The productivity goal was being highly focused on in the earlier proposal.
Economic Situation
As the economy continues to falter many of our citizens are feeling the pinch of making ends meet. So, one way to reduce costs is to take the bus. In fact if you go 20 miles from the eastside by bus it costs you $1,296 a year, if you were to take that same ride by car it costs $5,100 per year. So there is a possibility of this being a way to save money.
Upcoming Changes
The state's chief economist Arun Raha was quoted in the Seattle Times on Aug. 12, 2011 as saying, "the past two weeks have drastically changed the outlook for the US economy." When we see a downward change like this, we see an upward change in ridership. In addition, in October when the state tolling begins on Hwy 520 we expect another increase in bus ridership. So the economy and tolling will both be pushing ridership up, and at the same time the economy will be pushing the dollars for bus hours dramatically down. That is a perfect storm of bad news.
So in the situation with lots of "bad news" what do we do?
We could continue to make the cuts that were proposed reducing about 120,000 hours of buses on the eastside. That would push all those riders back into their cars. 95% of bus riders own a car. So they have the cars to contribute to increased congestion. That would mean that there would be a situation like when a large event at the UW attracted 15,000 more cars and set up gridlock for hours. That would be what was projected for us on a regular basis.
At that point, with all of us in gridlock, cars idling costing more gas money and time, and people who need buses not having a way to get to work or home would be screaming why didn't their elected officials fix the problem. The projected costs for increased gas consumption were above the $20 fee proposed. It was a "no win" situation.
Easier to say NO
Yes, I can guarantee and my staff can tell you that it would be much easier to say NO to a new fee. But that is not looking ahead to what is before us and be proactive that the people need to get to work and home and to activities without gridlock. Transit riders need to be able to have their buses and drivers need to have roads that are free of gridlock. That can only happen if we can provide the most cost effective transit system to make both bus riders and car drivers have available service.
Either way people will be angry. They don't want a fee increase and they don't want gridlock. But one is going to happen. So which in the long run is best for the citizens, the economy and the environment?
The gridlock will cost more in gas consumption than $20 and more time in commuting and being away from family and leisure activities.
So some of us got to work to see what we could do to comply with the SB 5457 law.
Kathy Lambert represents Woodinville on the King County Council.
I totally agree with you that the Sammamish Valley is our waterfront. In fact, those are the exact words I used in the article Patch did recently about my vision of Woodinville. So, I am glad we can agree on one thing. It is because we need to protect the valley that I feel it is important that Woodinville annex these certain properties along 140th Place NE. These are not actively cultivated farmlands, they are already developed properties - the Brown's homestead, Alliance Church, Montessori School, Veterinary Clinic, Kirchner Trailer, Jack's Tractor and Christine's Landscaping. We need to protect the valley and Sammamish River from pollution from these developed properties. We also have the opportunity to add to our growing wine/agri-tourism industry on these already developed properties to compliment the wine/agri-tourism industry. I am confused about your statement that this is being done by "insiders." Once again this is an example of half truths and innuendos. It is clear you have been to several public meetings where the proposed annexation has been discussed. There are many times a Council and Staff disagree. The City of Woodinville has discussed the proposed annexation at several meetings and passed a resolution supporting the annexation. These meetings were in public and on TV. The Chamber of Commerce is supporting the annexation. The County Council publicly discussed the annexation and it was on TV.
How typical of you and your small group. Whenever you can't win an argument based on the facts you resort to personal attacks. Sad.
Once again, you do not have your facts correct. I was elected by the voters of Woodinville to the City Council when I was a resident of the City and a registered voter of the City. I was sued over the issue of my residency and the lawsuit was dropped because it was groundless. I was then reelected to the City Council by the residents of Woodinville. While on the City Council I recused myself and did not vote on any rezone that involved my parents. And yes, I believe any politician exhibits courage when they take a controversial vote they believe is correct - whether or not I agree or disagree with them - because although I know it is part of the job, I also know how hard it is to be an elected official and take the criticism and personal attacks for standing up for what you believe to be correct. I believe it takes courage to stand up for what you believe is right. Kathy voted for what she believed was the right thing to do.
I'd just like to point out the "existing revenues" have fallen sharply. Had revenues been consistent, Metro wouldn't need additional funding. Metro has indeed worked within its budget. However, its budget did not (and could not) anticipate the sharp drop in sale tax revenue. Before asking the taxpayers for more money, Metro tapped its capital reserves, raised bus fares a shocking amount, and negotiated with its union, all of which closed nearly 80% of the budget gap. It's easy to demonize when you are not aware of the intricacies of any given issue. The reality is that bus service boosts the local economy while improving traffic for those who don't ride. In an community, we all work together. Your $0.05 a day is hardly onerous.
How does bus service boost the local economy compared to using the money in other ways? (see below for an example) How many cars does it actually take off the road? According to this: "Jacobson estimates that Metro carries over 340,000 people every day, and park and rides are hosting over 18,000 cars daily". So we can say for sure that 18,000 cars are not on the road because of bus service. (The ridership number is sort of meaningless since that does not translate to cars.) Now compare that to how many cars are on the road. Are 18,000 cars a significant number for the area covered by Metro? Every day, approximately 115,000 vehicles use the SR 520 bridge to cross Lake Washington. I-405 near Bellevue carries around 200,000 cars per day. These are just come quick facts for just a tiny portion of the traffic in this area. Imagine what happens when you include the WHOLE area. Now please consider the following: What if that same exact same money is used to build better roads, more efficient traffic control (intelligent traffic synchronization is not even close to what it could be), fix bridges and all the tools now available to improve traffic flow? Finally, if bus service is so great, how come very few (any?) politicians take the bus every day - even the proponents? This isn't "demonization" (a strange characterization) but an honest assessment of facts that are easy to verify.
Jack -- 340,000 riders and 18,000 spaces in park and rides yields only 18,000 vehicles off the road? Surely many of those cars took more than 1 person to the park and ride, folks who maybe took different busses and might have needed 2 cars to get people to their destinations. And surely many of the folks who would drive without bus service don't end up parking at a park and ride. I don't know how to arrive at the right figure, but 18,000 seems clearly too low, unless you assume anyone who rides the bus can't afford to drive, which seems a poor conclusion to make.
The routes I ride, and there are 6 depending on how I do it, faced cuts. 3 of the routes were proposed to be eliminated. Those busses are standing room only most days. The cuts were not proposed to empty routes, but to routes many of the folks in my community rely on. Not all of my neighbors have the luxury I have of beign able to ride a bike or afford a car trip. The south end routinely gets screwed -- we lost our light station with no warning or public comment, though we all paid our share for the line. We lost the 16th Ave bridge, a major arterial in our area. I believe in community. I believe that when I pay taxes, I'm helping my neighbor. I don't blindly trust the gov't and I don't want to give them endless funds with no oversight. But Metro works. People rely on it to get to work, to church, to the doctor. And everyone benefits anytime someone gets out of their car.
Anyway, I suspect we'll have to agree to respectfully disagree. But thanks nonetheless for the discussion. Cheers all! -b
I said invest in 21st Century technology! That means installing sensors for traffic in way more areas, building dynamic speed sign, etc. Some of this is visible on I-4 and I-90. Temporarily, economic issues are stalling traffic growth, however, there has been a consistent increase in demand for roads. take a ride to Marysville around 4pm Any study by "transit" is going to be 100% biased and misleading. Kemper Freeman is one of the first to come out and discard the old notion that doing nothing for roads somehow is a cure. I doubt very much that bikes are 5% of trips to Seattle from the Eastside or that transit is 30%. The numbers I already gave show that is clearly impossible!! You have to consider the BIG picture, not just Seattle.
So here's an idea: Since Seattle benefits so much from transit, Seattle should pay for all the service they provide in their area. I do not want to subsidize something I can't use. It is just not practical to take the bus most of the time. Downtown use is a slam dunk. That use does not translate at all to the outlying areas. It's like talking about septic tanks to city dwellers. They just don't understand. And that's why even politicians who support this do not take the bus. Isn't that revealing? Should make anyone think twice here.