Once again those like Patrick who want transportation choices succeed in pulling resources away from the people who really need them. ParaTransit cost $26 million in a Metro budget last year that spent a third of a billion dollars. Most of this went to subsidizing people who have the money and the physical ability to provide their own transportation. But to set the taxpayers up for a vote on a sales tax increase (only 3 cents on a $10 purchase) for Metro, these people are willing to tell disabled people that their service is going to be cut.

This is little different ethically, than shooting hostages. Nobodys transportation choices should be subsidized one dime, in lieu of continuing these services.

http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/19432

 
Limited Access - Metro wants to move hundreds of van patrons to regular buses
2000-05-12
by Dean A. Radford
Journal Reporter
In about two months, hundreds of low-income senior citizen and disabled riders who use King County's popular but expensive Access vans will have to find other ways to get around.
Metro Transit began sending out letters to participants in its Options program last week, explaining changes in eligibility and services that the Metropolitan King County Council approved a year ago.
The idea is to require more users with moderate disabilities to ride regular Metro buses at a fraction of the cost of the Access service. The average one-way trip in the Paratransit Program costs about $25.67, compared with about $3 on a regular Metro bus.
Metro is sending the letters out in small batches to explain transportation choices to each rider.
Senior citizens and their advocates say the changes could isolate seniors in their homes, but county officials say Metro can't afford the spiraling costs.
``We want to preserve it (the van service) for the people who need it the most,'' said Sandy Stutey, supervisor of Metro's Accessible Services Program.
The number of Access van trip requests has jumped dramatically and Metro officials are looking to the day when demand increases even more as Baby Boomers age.
The King County staff has spent the last year working out the details of the changes. They will hold public meetings Monday in Kent and Redmond to answer riders' questions.
Options riders and those with conditional eligibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act still will be able to ride the vans in some situations.
For example, a rider will have to walk to a bus stop if it's within four-tenths of a mile of his home. If the bus stop is farther away, and the rider has a legitimate reason he can't walk that far, an Access van will take him to the stop.
And the changes don't affect the fare subsidies offered to Options riders, including coupons for 50 percent off a taxi ride or special low fares on Metro buses.
The changes initially could affect about 2,200 riders countywide, including 342 in South King County, who regularly participated in the Options program in 1999. During the next two years, Metro will contact about 16,000 occasional participants in the program, including about 2,300 in South King County, to let them know their eligibility has changed.
The county now spends about $26 million to provide the paratransit service. That will remain stable through 2004; without the changes, the cost would have jumped to about $33.2 million in 2004. (The figures are not adjusted for inflation.)
The program offers about 1 million rides annually, but that number will drop to about 940,000 rides annually by 2004. Without the eligibility changes, Metro projected the number of rides would have grown to 1.47 million by 2004.
Those who qualify for subsidized bus service under the Americans with Disabilities Act are not affected. Metro expects that many of its Options riders will qualify for the ADA-required service, but those riders will have to apply for the service.
``Until they go through the ADA application process, their transportation is definitely as risk,'' Stutey said.
Metro will train Options riders how to ride a bus or read a bus schedule to ease anxiety about riding a bus without assistance.
All of Metro's 2,500 drivers are being trained to make them sensitive to the needs of senior citizens and the disabled. Within two months, drivers will call out each bus stop.
``We hope that it will make a kinder and friendlier system,'' Stutey said. 
Dean Radford covers King County. He can be reached at 253-872-6719 or dean.radford@southcountyjournal.com



 

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000

Answers

I wonder wher Anirudh stands on a system that buys underground park and ride stalls on Mercer Island for $30,000 each to provide close access to subsidized transit for people wealthy enough to own their own cars (or live on Mercer Island, for that matter) so that they can ride highly taxpayer subsidized mass transit a few miles into the city on heavily discounted commuter passes, while requiring the elderly and infirm to walk 4/10 mile (remembering that the USDOT studies demonstrate that AVERAGE transit riders will find a walk acceptable ONLY up to a quarter mile, and that in good weather) to take buses that poorly support their needs.

I want to frankly ask you if you believe it is an honorable thing for transit users who are not transit dependent to use a system, when their use results in pulling resources away from the transit dependent?

This, I believe, is analogous to the HOV users underpaying their share for a commons, but is in my mind an even more egregious example of selfishness. Do you defend it? Can you defend it?

craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 12, 2000.

Still waiting, Anirudh.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 15, 2000.

to Craig: The folks on Mercer Island paid exorbitant sales taxes when they bought their cars. Every year thereafter, they paid enormous licese tab fees.

So, yes, it's quite easy to defend. The people on Mercer Island easily paid for the infrastructure they received.

Simularly for riders in the HOV lanes. We paid sales taxes when we bought our cars. We paid license tab fees in the same proportion as others, even though we don't use our cars as much.

So, yes, it is quite easy to defend.

You still haven't explained why we fund roads differently than schools, parks, libraries, etc.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 16, 2000.

Matt-

I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse, playing Devil's advocate, or really believe the postings you put up. But you seem to be butting in on interesting discussions with BB and with Anirudh, both of whom appear rational and interesting and polite.

Perhaps it would be better if you started your own thread, and you and I can argue there rather than distracting from more constructive discussions.

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 16, 2000.

Matt- I think of you go to AltaVista translations (http://babelfish.altavista.com/cgi-bin/translate?) and paste in Craig's comments and translate from "diplomatic" to "plain talk" you will find it comes out something like this:

Look Matt!
We are trying to have an ADULT conversation here!
You obviously don't qualify.
If you would kindly take your silly-assed comments down the road, Craig will divert himself from serious discussions to periodically inform you of how ignorant/arrogant/foolish you are.

And if you asked my opinion, I think the translation is not only technically accurate but nicely states the actual situation. as always zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.

Wednesday, May 17, 2000, 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Changes coming on Metro routes

by Peyton Whitely Seattle Times Eastside bureau Several changes involving Metro Transit service are planned over the next few months, including more buses to Mariner games now and reduced services for people using Access vans.

Nuff said!!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.

to Mark: Who is Nuff, and what did he say?

In any case, transit is a tool for increased prosperity. By facilitating attendance to Mariners games, society will have more revenues in the future to address the needs of the disadvantaged. Of course, we could address the needs more immediately by taxing the wealthy.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 18, 2000.

"By facilitating attendance to Mariners games, society will have more revenues in the future to address the needs of the disadvantaged" Actually, I believe it is the disadvantaged who are disproportionately funding Safeco field already, through the highly progressive tax system known as the State Lottery.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.

"Of course, we could address the needs more immediately by taxing the wealthy."

Until they get fed up and move to another country, taking their wealth with them.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.

"Until they get fed up and move to another country, taking their wealth with them. "

It is a sad commentary on what socialism has done to a once-great nation that the United Kingdom now KNIGHTS their prominent citizens who become wealthy and DON'T change their citizenship to avoid paying the UKs confiscatorial taxes. If Canada learned their lesson, they wouldn't have their ongoing brain drain.

This country has long benefited from the unwise social policies of other countries.

Mark

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), May 18, 2000.

to zowie: If you're advocating getting the government out of the gambling business, you have my complete support.

I'd very much like to be part of a campaign to raise the gambling age to 30, and 1 year every year after that.

I despise gambling. It is inherently unethical, and represents a process whereby the strong prey upon the weak. How society can sanction such an activity, not to mention actively promote it, is unfathomable.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.

to Marsha & Mark: Yes, I can see the wealthy taking their homes, rental property, land, etc. to some other country. A country with even higher taxes and more corrupt governments.

Back in 1993, the Democrats raised the marginal tax rate on the very wealthy from 31% to 39%. Did the wealthy leave our country? No. Is the economy booming, and are we finally in a position to reduce the national debt? Yes!

So, I see no adverse effects in forcing the rich to do more for society, within limits, of course. Any policy taken to the extreme is, well, EXTREME!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.

"No. Is the economy booming, and are we finally in a position to reduce the national debt? Yes!" I'd quicker credit a Republican Congress that forced Clinton to hold down spending than a raise in the marginal rate. Marginal rates have been a LOT higher historically, and Democratic Congresses managed to spend every dollar that came in and then some.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

That is so cool Mark! You are really getting good with the html.

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

to Mark: The point is RIGHT NOW, if we lower the marginal rate back to 31%, the deficit will likely re-appear, voodoo economics notwithstanding.

Furthermore, why should I advocate cutting taxes for the wealthy. Why not lower the social security tax, which would benefit both workers and businesses alike? Why not lower the gas tax (which, to give credit to the Rpublicans, they recently proposed)?

There is no harm in shafting the wealthy a little bit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 19, 2000.

OK, maybe Zowie did it.

Can we redirect this thread back to the original topic?

From Mark:

"Once again those like Patrick who want transportation choices succeed in pulling resources away from the people who really need them."

Where Is Patrick? Has he avoided this thread because he has no reasonable answer for Mark? And of course Anirudh is too busy to deal with this issue. How convienient. We have already established that Comrade mattinsky feels no guilt in stealing resources from the disabled/elderly, because of his narcissism. For him it is easy to defend:

"Simularly for riders in the HOV lanes. We paid sales taxes when we bought our cars. We paid license tab fees in the same proportion as others, even though we don't use our cars as much." "So, yes, it is quite easy to defend."

Reading all of Comrade mattinsky's posts, one comes to realize that he only supports his own agenda. Tax the rich, screw the poor, give it all to Comrade mattinsky.

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

I notice that Patrick, CS, and Anirudh continue to be exceedingly quiet on this topic. The first two, at least, really don't have any problem claiming the moral high ground, and demagoguing anyone who tries to suggest that transit maybe isn't the answer as ogres who would deprive the elderly, the poor, and the infirm of vital transportation services. They choose to ignore the fact that it's the healthy and certainly not impoverished "transportation choices" crowd that consumes the vast majority of the subsidized transit services, and that comes at the expense of the people that they acuse others of victimizing. It isn't about social responsibility for these people. It's about using the unfortunate for their own economic advantage.
zowie var message='Screw Transit! Build Roads!' var backgroundcolor="yellow" var displaymode=1 var displayduration=5000 var flashmode=1 var flashtocolor="lightgreen" function regenerate(){ window.location.reload() } var which=0 function regenerate2(){ if (document.layers) setTimeout("window.onresize=regenerate",400) } function display2(){ if (document.layers){ if (topmsg.visibility=="show") topmsg.visibility="hide" else topmsg.visibility="show" } else if (document.all){ if (topmsg.style.visibility=="visible") topmsg.style.visibility="hidden" else topmsg.style.visibility="visible" setTimeout("display2()",Math.round(Math.random()*10000)+100 00) } } function flash(){ if (which==0){ if (document.layers) topmsg.bgColor=flashtocolor else topmsg.style.backgroundColor=flashtocolor which=1 } else{ if (document.layers) topmsg.bgColor=backgroundcolor else topmsg.style.backgroundColor=backgroundcolor which=0 } } if (document.all){ document.write(''+message+'') } function logoit(){ document.all.topmsg.style.left=document.body.scrollLeft+docum ent.body.clientWidth/2-document.all.topmsg.offsetWidth/2 document.all.topmsg.style.top=document.body.scrollTop+docu ment.body.clientHeight-document.all.topmsg.offsetHeight-4 } function logoit2(){ topmsg.left=pageXOffset+window.innerWidth/2-topmsg.docume nt.width/2 topmsg.top=pageYOffset+window.innerHeight-topmsg.documen t.height-5 setTimeout("logoit2()",90) } function setmessage(){ document.all.topmsg.style.left=document.body.scrollLeft+docum ent.body.clientWidth/2-document.all.topmsg.offsetWidth/2 document.all.topmsg.style.top=document.body.scrollTop+docu ment.body.clientHeight-document.all.topmsg.offsetHeight-4 document.all.topmsg.style.backgroundColor=backgroundcolor document.all.topmsg.style.visibility="visible" if (displaymode==1) setTimeout("topmsg.style.visibility='hidden'",displayduration) else if (displaymode==2) display2() if (flashmode==1) setInterval("flash()",1000) window.onscroll=logoit window.onresize=new Function("window.location.reload()") } function setmessage2(){ topmsg=new Layer(window.innerWidth) topmsg.bgColor=backgroundcolor regenerate2() topmsg.document.write(message) topmsg.document.close() logoit2() topmsg.visibility="show" if (displaymode==1) setTimeout("topmsg.visibility='hide'",displayduration) else if (displaymode==2) display2() if (flashmode==1) setInterval("flash()",1000) } if (document.layers) window.onload=setmessage2 else if (document.all) window.onload=setmessage

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 20, 2000.

Oh well, back to the drawing board!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 20, 2000.

Just looked at this thread for the first time (thanks to a pointer in another thread by Marsha). Looks to me like this is one of those tough trade-offs that has no absolute right answer. Should the able- bodied members of society make sacrifices in order to help the elderly and infirm? Absolutely; but how far should they go? If there is a finite amount of money to go around, and a single demand response trip costs about 8 times as much ($26) as a trip on regular transit ($3), how much money should be spent on demand response, and how much on regular transit? It depends on how many there are in each group, how severe the impact is to those who are deprived of service (can they move to some place that is better served by transit, etc.), and on personal values, which are not universal. It's not something that I know much about or that I've researched at all, so I don't have a particularly useful opinion on it.

BTW, let's be a bit realistic about whom to put the blame on here. Eyman explicitly copped out of setting any priorities for I-695 spending cuts. He left the tough choices up to others ("Politicians will simply re-prioritize, the same way we do when they raise our taxes..."). There was *precisely* nothing in I-695 that ordered Metro to give the elderly and infirm priority over the able-bodied, so what grounds were there to believe that Metro's values would match yours?

Your main point is well taken, however; if I hear anyone using the needy as an argument for preserving bus service, I will check to see if they really know what they are talking about. If you're looking for someone on whom to vent your disgust at the hypocrisy of using the infirm as hostages to subsidize transportation needs of the able- bodied, sorry, but it ain't me. I've personally never used the disabled or needy as an argument for subsidizing regular bus service, and if someone else has used that argument, I'm not going to defend it until I see meaningful data to back it up.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 26, 2000.

"Your main point is well taken, however; if I hear anyone using the needy as an argument for preserving bus service, I will check to see if they really know what they are talking about. If you're looking for someone on whom to vent your disgust at the hypocrisy of using the infirm as hostages to subsidize transportation needs of the able- bodied, sorry, but it ain't me. I've personally never used the disabled or needy as an argument for subsidizing regular bus service, and if someone else has used that argument, I'm not going to defend it until I see meaningful data to back it up. "

But, as a non-transit user, it is much easier to convince me to subsidize a service to someone who (through no fault of their own) requires it then it is to convince me to subsidize someone who has the same options that I do, but just "chooses" to use a more costly option.

Why should I voluntarily subsidize someone's transportation who is as able as I am to pay for their own transportation?

That makes no sense, nor is it equitable. I do not ask transit users to pay 80% of my operating costs and 100% of my capital costs for my transportation choices.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 26, 2000.

In 1998,

LA County Metro figures for Demand Response, post a cost of $8.31 per unlinked trip.

Portland Tri-Met figures for same are $15.72.

Seattle Metro $25.67.

There ARE many Transit Authorities that posted much higher figures than Seattle Metro. (Washington DC Metro Area Transit Authority $50.63 per unlinked trip.)

Makes one wonder though, why Metro can't keep the cost per unlinked trip lower.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), June 26, 2000.