I live in Pierce County. Below are two addresses on the Pierce County Transit website.

http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm

http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/bsum.htm

The first is the operating revenue summary. It indicates that, of the operating revenue for Pierce Transit, 37% comes from the MVET, versus 16% form fares.

The second is the total budget summary. It shows that, of the total budget, only 12 % comes from fares, versus 25% from MVET.

Now I accept the proposition that society has a responsibility to provide some degree of public transport for individuals who are unable to drive (age, infirmity, loss of license, etc.) But transit sytems have been privatized with considerable increase in efficiency. On occasion, they even became self supporting. And somehow, I think the actual users of these resources need to poney up at least a third of the

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 13, 1999

Answers

What? Are you suggesting the those who use a service should pay one- third of the cost of the service and use the coercive power of government to FORCE others to pay the rest of the cost? I realize that this may be more reasonable than the current arrangement by which the users only pay 12% of the costs.

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 14, 1999.

I'm not sure why this bulletin board keeps truncating my responses, but yes, the posting was going to say that users ought to pay at least a third of the total budget cost through their user fees. This conceeds that many of the users are also paying part of the cost of services through THEIR sales tax, property tax, and oftentimes even their MVET (currently). I believe as a society, it is not unreasonable to "self insure" against the possibility that someone might develop a seizure disorder or other problem that might keep me from driving for a prolonged basis, and I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount to keep such a system in place. On the other hand, I think the fees charged users should also be a reasonable amount, and I don't think that 12% constitutes a reasonable amount. But more to the point, as long as government can subsidize this with taxes ad lib, there is no incentive to bring down the cost of this service through competitive bidding, contracting out, etc. There is no incentive to do things the smart way if the taxpayers don't object to people doing things the easy way. But we must educate ourselves by getting into these budget documents and making the politicians defend them. Prior to seeing these pie charts, would you have guessed that users fees covered only an eighth of the cost? (Less than that, really, because that doesn't count the cost of the roads they travel on which are payed for with gas and property taxes that county tr

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 14, 1999.

One good reason to cut the MVET is to keep the state government from doing STUPID things with our money. Case in point: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

Now the Washington DOT's history on the Narrows is not exactly great to begin with. The first bridge was finished July 1, 1940 at a cost of $7 million (and one fatality). It lasted a little over four months, and collapsed in heavy winds killing a dog. It was rebuilt (for $14 million) and reopened in mid-October, 1950. It has four lanes, two going in either direction. Now given that 49 years have passed, it really should be no surprise to anyone that traffic is exceeding its designed capacity. The DOT's plan? Convert the existing bridge to 2 general purpose lanes and an HOV lane one way, and build a new bridge with 2 general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in the other direction. Now the Kitsap peninsula is a fairly rural area, presenting some difficulties for car pooling. There is an hourly Pierce County Transit bus across the Narrows, typically carrying 6-8 people, but during rush hour sometimes getting almost a third full. Given that the DOT thinks it is reasonable to spend $350 million to build a bridge and another $350 million to build the access roads up to it on either side, I'm convinced that they are too STUPID to deserve my MVET money. Now I've got no problem with a second bridge, even if they want to make it a toll bridge, but putting $700 million into a bridge for a NET GAIN OF TWO LOUSY HOV lanes is too stupid to do. Let's take the money away, and not give it back until they come up with a plan that isn't stupid.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 22, 1999.