I-695 opponents are treating this initiative like a 2% reduction is the end of the world. It isnt. Relative to other transit systems in the US, those in Washington State are massively over-subsidized. While nationwide farebox revenues cover about 40% of operating costs (more in big urban systems, less in small rural systems), here in Washington we way over subsidize transit, with user costs (fares) being around 20% of operating costs for the large systems, way below that for the rural systems. Here is an OUTSTANDING place to begin taking any cuts that need to be taken.

The national average: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTST.nsf/NTST/1997/$File/Ntst97.pdf

Operating Funds

As shown in Exhibit 3-1, passenger fares and local funds compose the bulk of operations funding. In 1997, fares contributed 39.7 percent of the funds applied for transit operations while local assistance contributed 31 percent. State operating as-sistance accounted for 20.4 percent while Federal funds supplied 3.4 percent. For the 1993-1997 time frame, passenger fares as a percentage of operating funds applied had an increasing trend, ranging from 36.5 percent in 1993 to 39.7 percent in 1997. The contribution of local assistance remained stable, ranging from 30.8 percent in 1993 to 31 percent in 1997. Federal assistance accounted for 5.4 percent of the total operating funds in 1993 and decreased to 3.4 percent in 1997. State assistance decreased from 20.7 percent in 1993 to 20.4 percent in 1997. The Federal participation in operating subsidies to agencies had a decreasing trend, as Federal resources shifted toward investments in capital. The recovery ratio in the last five years had an increasing trend between 1993 and 1996, ranging from 39.5 percent in 1993 to 42.7 percent in 1996. The ratio decreased slightly, down to 42.3 percent, in 1997.

Meanwhile, Metro collected 21% of operating revenue at the farebox. http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0001/$File/P0001.PDF

Pierce County Transit did even worse at 16%. http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm

Spokane was a measly 14%. http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0002/$File/P0002.PDF

Olympia and Bremerton were 11%: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Less+Than+200000/0019/$File/P0019.PDF http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Less+Than+200000/0020/$File/P0020.PDF

Yakima was 9%. http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Less+Than+200000/0006/$File/p0006.pdf

Bellingham was 6%. http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Less+Than+200000/0021/$File/P0021.PDF

Heck, just getting these programs up to the national average farebox recovery will save buckets of money, $62 million a year from Metro King County alone.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999

Answers

Mark-

You are forgetting our ferries at 14%. If we got them up to the BS Ferries recovery rates of 94%, that would be about $120 MILLION per year, all by themselves. Heck, we could offset all the transportation cuts just by making our transit and ferry systems as user funded as the US AVERAGE.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 01, 1999.

Mark and Craig:

And you are forgetting that 695 is NOT a referrendum on transit. It is not even mentioned. 695 is a funding cut, but does nothing to change any priorities of any state agencies or local governments. Proponenents keep saying it is only a 2% cut (which I dispute) but if that is the case the transit programs you are concerned about ought to be cut by just 2%. If you wanted something more, something targeted to reduce transit funding, the initiative should have said so. As it is, it is just funding with no mandate or direction on what that means in terms of funding for ANY state or local programs.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 01, 1999.

d-

You need to read the posting before criticizing. The posting indicates that, if I-695 passes, the revenue loss (which anti 695 people are complaining about) could be largely offset by simply raising transit and ferry fares to a level commensurate with other states/provinces. This would, of course, require a vote of the people of the state under the second provision of I-695. The intent of the posting is to demonstrate that WSDOT is relatively flush, not underfunded, and that it would not be unreasonable for them to absorb a greater than pro rata share of the loss of revenue. What part of that do you not understand?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 02, 1999.

Craig:

The part where you imply MVET supported programs have anything to do with the merits, or not, of I-695. I have been cricized for creating strawmen, but here you are creating straw-cuts and presenting them as a rational for approval of the initiative. If we were voting on transit and the ferry system, this would be valid comment on the intent of THAT initiative. Since we are not, it isn't.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 10, 1999.

d-

The value of government programs certainly have to do with whether or not the government can sustain a 2% cut. I'm pointing out government programs that, in my opinion, would be excellent candidates for cuts. By what stretch of logic is this not germane to the issue of whether or not I-695 should be passed.

The fact that you don't agree with this particular cut (or the very concept of I-695, for that matter) does not make it non-relevant, anymore than your wishing it didn't exist will make I-695 go away.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

d-

As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I-695 is about a 2% reduction in revenue to the state. I am looking at areas where either offsetting cuts can be made, or offsetting revenue can be found. This is to counter the "the sky is falling" arguments that some anti 695 types are giving. Given that I-695 passes (and I realize that is not your desire) the next issue becomes where should the cuts be taken or fees increased. I am putting my arguments in early. If you don't like them, put in your own suggestions as to where the cuts should be taken or new revenues found.

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 10, 1999.

Yet another voice indicating that we are wasting our money on transit. From the USDOT archives, no less.

From: Publication No. DOT-T-95-11 December 1994US Department of Transportation Commuting Alternatives in the United States: Recent Trends and a Look to the Future

http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/CAUS.html

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The use of public transportation for the journey to work has declined consistently over the past several decades. According to Census data, the transit share declined from 12.6 percent in 1960 to 5.3 percent in 1990. Even more significant is the fact that the absolute number of commuters using transit also declined from over 7.8 million workers in 1960 to nearly 6.1 million workers in 1990. This occurred despite a 39 percent increase in population and a 78 percent increase in the total number of workers over the same time period. From a strict policy perspective, it is reasonable to question whether continued investment and support of public transportation is an appropriate and effective use of public funds. This policy question is acknowledged and considered by many in the literature. Development patterns that exist in America today are not conducive to wide-spread transit use. For this reason, it is important to have a clear and thorough understanding of specific market segments that are most inclined to use transit. In particular, the identification of market segments that have a greater than normal probability of using transit for the work trip should be a high priority.

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

Craig:

I understood you. I just don't agree with you. First, 2% understates the magnitude of the budget loss. Second, I object to an untargeted budget cut that prevents meaningful discussion of the merits of the programs that will be effected. Third, you timing is off. Fourth, this is the wrong place to influence the priorities and projects of any level of government. All you can do here is try to influence voters on the initiative, and 695 has nothing to say about transit or any other program. You keep bringing up transit issues as if it means something important related to 695. I don't agree with you, as I have said REPEATEDLY.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

Since we are about to pass I-695, we will be required to take the 2% decrease in state revenue SOMEWHERE. I would strongly recommend we take a major portion of it in transit. Even the transit advocates are admitting that their attempts at changing people's behavior have been a dismal failure. Given that It's the biggest single line item in the MetroKC budget, it is RIPE for cutting to offset the MVET losses:

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Over the past few decades, the public transit industry in the U.S. continuously has made efforts to provide quality services in extremely challenging environments. The range of efforts has been broad, including institutional and organizational modifications, technological and hardware changes, and service delivery and marketing innovations. In spite of these changes, the industry has had limited success in its efforts to adapt to the challenges of transit markets that have been impacted by demographic, geographic, economic, technological, and societal trends. As a result, the industry has experienced continued declines in market share, ongoing financial struggles, and continuing challenges in attempting to meet the needs of changing markets. From a strict policy perspective, it is reasonable to question whether continued investment and support of public transportation is an appropriate and effective use of public funds. This policy question is acknowledged and considered by many in the literature. Development patterns that exist in America today are not conducive to wide-spread transit use.

http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/CAUS.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Yo d-

Looks like I'm not the ONLY one who thinks this way. From today's PI:

If the initiative passes, Metro must be prepared to accommodate unprecedented impacts to its system: A 25 to 30 percent reduction in bus service, an immediate 40 to 50 percent fare increase and layoffs of as many as 1,000 employees.

The P-I is concerned about how voters might perceive Metro's outreach effort. But Metro is concerned about the reality of how fare increases and deep service cuts would affect its customers.

Paul A. Toliver Director, King County Department of Transportation

http://www.seattle-pi.com/opinion/ltrs126.shtml

The usual rule of thumb is that a 10% increase in fares results in a 4% decrease in ridership. (http://www.apta.com/info/online/elastic.htm) A 50% increase in fares will result in a 20% decrease, just from the fares. That would, however, leave the Seattle subsidy still considerably above the national norm for large cities.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Fare Elasticity and Its Application to Forecasting Transit Demand Abstract

Findings On the average, a ten percent increase in bus fares would result in a four percent decrease in ridership. This shows that today's transit users react more severely to fare changes than found by Simpson and Curtin. Fare Elasticity-Bus Services Average (all hours all cities) -0.40

Transit riders in small cities are more responsive to fare increases than those in large cities. The fare elasticity for bus service is - 0.36 for systems in urbanized areas of 1 million or more population. In urbanized areas with less than 1 million people, the elasticity is -0.43.

http://www.apta.com/info/online/elastic.htm

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 12, 1999.

Craig:

You are really stuck on this aren't you? The reason Metro is "thinking this way" about dealing with a budget cut, is that it is very unclear how MVET losses will be distributed in either the short term or the long term. 695 does nothing to resolve funding priorities.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 12, 1999.

d-

"695 does nothing to resolve funding priorities. "

I realize that, d. That's why I'm moving aggressively to identify MY priorities for cuts to anyone who'll listen. I'd advise you to do the same, because I think I-695 is going to pass.

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.

I offer $50 million in savings for ths first year. All we have to do is defer the new Narrows brdige project. That saves $50 million. That was pretty easy. How difficult can this be?

In general, we can save an enormous amount of money by deferring all of the road projects funded by Referendum 49. Let the people vote in November, 2000, as to how much they want to raise their license tab fees in order to fund road improvements.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 13, 1999.

$62 million??? we will need ten times that to offset 695 losses...oh, and would we have to vote on those fare increases? Tim says that families will buy new cars and computers with the savings...I say pay-per-view and pizza.

-- pay your taxes!!! (you'realllosers@prolife695.com), October 19, 1999.

Oct. 21, 1999 Major crackdown on food stamp fraud to be announced King County Executive Ron Sims, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng and representatives from the various law enforcement agencies will announce this afternoon the filing of numerous criminal charges resulting from the largest investigation of food stamp fraud in state history.

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/102199ma.htm

Gee, were going to have fewer people on food stamps to go along with the fewer people on welfare. Why dont we take some of this money to offset some of the decrease when the MVET goes away?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.