Ok...

I'm willing to bet that few people know that in the State of Washington, there are the following types of transit systems:

1.City owned systems (currently Everett, Yakima, Pullman) These systems are allowed to collect a household tax or up to .6% sales tax. The sales tax collection, under R-49 is allowed to be matched with MVET matching funds. 2.Public Transportation Benefit Areas (all systems except above, Grays Harbor Transit, Metro Transit) PTBA's are allowed to collect up to .6% sales tax, and the state matches sales tax receipts with MVET funds. The statute requires this to be done. 3.County Transportation Authorites, Grays Harbor Transit is it. Allowed .6% sales tax, MVET matching funds 4.Metropolitan Municipal Corporations, King County Metro Transit Can legally request up to 1.0% sales tax, can request bond measures, can enact property taxes, and gets MVET matching funds. 5.Regional Transit Authorities, Central Puget Sound RTA Can tax without a ceiling, upon voter approval, allowed bonds without votes, basically has independent tax authority. Strangely, MVET portion of tax is unaffected by I-695 (only system in the state that won't be), except that the state legislature will need to impose a special formula.

Now, when I-695 passes, how will you explain to somebody that they can no longer go to work, because the buses don't run to them or their work anymore? How will you explain to a handicapped person that the new buses their system was going to purchase got cancelled, so they will be stuck with paratransit, at a dramatically reduced rate of service (FYI, I'm talking about Ben Franklin Transit).

How will you explain to a rural transit user that they no longer have service because their system is broke, and can't afford to pay their drivers, or operate their equipment?

One more... How will you explain to your parents why your common sense has gone astray? And how will you teach your children, when schools can no longer teach them because they are full, and don't have enough teachers to teach?

Feel guilty now?

Brian Bradford The Activist of Kennewick, WA

-- Brian Bradford (bbradford@tcfn.org), August 28, 1999

Answers

Brian,,,

Yes, I could feel just a touch of guilt, IF, there were to be people in need of transportation and they could not do the things necessary to endure life. BUT I will feel no guilt if these things happen and the state goes on spending like a druken sailor. If you, or anyone else can show me that the state spends its tax dollars prudently and with the welfare of the tax paypayer foremost in their mind, Ill change sides and support the opposition to I-695.

If someone should decide to take the challenge to show the state is a good steward of our tax dollars, please start with the Okanogan PTBA and the $300,000.00 that WSDOT has shoved at the county after a 67% no vote on the issue.

GOOD LUCK !!!

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 28, 1999.

OOOOPS... that word is drunken,, just a slip of the finger..

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 28, 1999.

How will we pay for public transportation???

One fare at a time.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 29, 1999.

Brian- I believe Ben-Franklin Transit has $8-12 million in the bank last I heard. Also what about the $60 million in Clark County that they wanted to use for a mall. Just wondering if that money came from ridership or taxpayers. (Hey their the same).

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), August 29, 1999.

Brian-

When you look at the transit budgets over time, they are getting larger and larger, even adjusted for inflation. The subsidies (ie., that part not covered by fares) are getting greater and greater, however their share of the total transportation miles is stagnant or decreasing. And this makes sense, because with increased prosperity, even the disadvantaged have more and more access to privately owned vehicles.

I believe we need to provide a transportation "safety net" for those with medical problems, who have lost their licenses, etc., but I think we need to use a little reason and common sense. Right now, farebox revenues are artificially low, often only 12-20% of the cost of providing services. At what point does further subsidization (or even continuing the current subsidization) become unreasonable? Some recommend it be made free? Do you? If so, what should the frequency be, once an hour, once a day? Since the MVET is a state tax, should a state resident in Republic have the same frequancy of Service as one in Olympia or Seattle? Give me what you believe would be an appropriate tax supported frequency of service and fare subsidy, in your opinion.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 29, 1999.

Ok... BFT has that money in the bank for a rainy day fund, and for bus procurement... They have gotten a lot of flack (including the Feds) for having this much squirreled away... This was because the former General Manager (who I think is running for Port commissioner in Benton County now) felt it was proper business practice.

The funds are sufficient to provide for 6 months operations in the absence of funding (ie, loss of tax monies).

Read my post elsewhere (I'll remember in a moment) about my solvency plan for BFT, the only system in the state with a good and proper budget process...

Brian Bradford

-- Brian Bradford (bbradford@tcfn.org), August 30, 1999.

Brian-

I'm glad you believe they have a "good and proprer budget process" but I'd have to ask you what level of subsidy you thing BFT or any transit organization ought to enjoy? They pulled in about $1.3 million at the farebox, with operating costs of $13 million. How much of public transit should be paid for by the direct users, how much should come from MVET or other funds furnished by others who may have little if any public transit available to themselves? Farebox revenue of 10% is awfully low, even for transit. See the site @ http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Less+Than+200000/0018/ $File/P0018.PDF

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Dear Rons:

What is this "drunken sailor" crap? Why not a drunken seminary student or a drunken bureaucrat? Why bash sailors?

-- Art Rathjen (librty@coastaccess.com), August 30, 1999.

Brian

I will repeat my post on the B-F transit cost of boarding from page 94 of the 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Dec 31, 1998)

Bus $4.80 Dial-A-Ride $12.60 Vanpool $1.04 Night Service $10.86 General Demand $6.88

The Vanpool is the only service that is operating in the black. It costs the taxpayer at least $4.30 everytime someone steps on a bus, assuming they pay the full $0.50 fare (students and seniors do not).

The Transit has a $12.3 million surplus. They get 3.75% of all the sales tax collected in their area of service. This is then matched by MVET revenue. They could operate for 2 years (with the same wasteful management practacies) after I-695 is passed without taking one dime of MVET money.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

Hmm... I think the reason Okanogan failed is because they were requesting 6/10th's sales tax (which is the highest available for PTBAs). I don't know why they did... There are systems on the other side of the mountains that do well with .2, with a comparatively small tax base.

I think any system should review service levels. If service levels dictate that a bus be sitting idle with a driver for excessive periods, that bus should be operating on other routes during that idle period. If ridership is not sufficient to support one bus operating on the route, it should be cut back to demand response. If you look at your figures for cost per passenger, you will notice that Prosser services (Demand Response) only costs 2.00 more per passenger. This is also because their vehicles average 5-7 people per hour, per vehicle, versus dial a ride, 1-2 pph, per vehicle.

Dial A Ride is expensive, and is also Federally Mandated... BFT could cut costs by running Tri-Cities DAR like they run Prosser services (General Public, shared ride). This would cut DAR costs substantially. Of course, BFT could also put operations to bid tender... but I can assure you, private industry does not do a sufficient job when it comes to customer service...

Ask me about Laidlaw sometime...

-- Brian Bradford (bbradford@tcfn.org), August 31, 1999.

Well Brian, Laidlaw? You mean the largest privately owned and publicly funded semi-monopoly in the transportation/waste management/shipping business that is based in Canada?? The one that provides contract school buses all over North America (Canada US and Mexico) and runs those buses on EXEMPT licenses? The one that skates by without paying fees like other bus companies? Tell me more.

I've tried to get radio talk shows interested enough to expose that creature but they wont' do it..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

Even after re-reading the original posting several times (the part after the explanation of the different transit districts) I have a very hard time believing that this is a serious series of questions. Somehow I keep expecting you to jump out and say "I'm only kidding." But that is not there, so let me answer as if it were serious. First off, I-695 merely eliminates one source of funding for transit. It returns, however, a large amount of money to the car owners that live in every transit district. The transit district can obtain approval for fare increases or other tax increases to support operations if a majority of voters believe such increases are "worth it." If a majority of voters do not see the merit in such an increase, those who do see such merit can voluntarily donate money to underwrite such missions as you suggest. Only if a majority of voters do not agree with you that such services are "worth it" or a minority do not support it voluntarily enough will such a shortfall occur. You seem to assume that the services you are desirous of obtaining will not receive approval or voluntary support. If you are correct, then I would suggest that one explanation to give is that the value of the service is not perceived to be as great as the cost for obtaining such service. This is life in many circumstances. I would likfe to eat filet mignon, but it costs $20 and so I decide to eat hamburger instead because it is not worth it to me. I do not believe that society is obligated to satisfy my every desire in food, and I don't believe society is so obligated with respect to transportation. I may desire to have designer jeans that cost $100, but I decide to buy Wrangler at the outlet mall for $15 because in the end it just isn't worth it to me. I do not believe society is obligated to satisfy my every desire in clothes, and similarly with transportation. In the situation where the majority of voters will not agree to force taxpayers to pay for my transportation, and transit supporters will not voluntarily agree to pay for my transportation, I just have a hard time getting guilty about it. Life is full of choices and there are consequences for such choices--two of which are: where do I live compared to where do I work, and what is the value of what I can do for my employer compared to the cost to me of providing that service. In all of this I just come back to basics: Why should the car owner in Goldendale, who has to drive 40 miles a day to work in his own car, extravagantly subsidize the transportation costs of a person living on Vashon Island who has a job in Seattle and decides not to have a car? If what you are really saying is that poor people (whether disabled or fully-abled) should have more money, then you should address this directly by giving them more money. But they might decide that the "more money" has a higher value to them if they spend it on X than the transportation that you want for them. Then what? Moreover, this is getting completely away from the effects of I- 695, which simply says that MVET will not support "mass transportation" as it has in the past, but does not itself restrict majority voters from replacing those tax revenues with others, nor does it restrict volunteers from underwriting such services that they strongly believe in. If your concerns were truly serious, I hope this helps to explain one way of thinking about it that does not generate guilt.

-- Vancouver car owner (KCEEPeters@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

Vancouver Car Owner-

A refreshing voice of reason amidst rampant hyperbole and demagoguery. Thanks for the posting.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.

Brian B.

I have to disagree with your reason for the Okanogan Transit system failing with 67% NO vote. Just a few facts that come directly from their book, the Comprehensive Transit Plan for the Okanogan County Transit Authority.

The tax increase asked for was .4% sales tax.

Cost per boarding, $44.95 the first yr.(total cost of system divided by # or projected boardings) It did drop to $ 34.74 in the 6th yr.

Budget for OCTA $ 1.797 million first yr, $ 2.98 million in the 5th yr.

The proposed local fare was to be $.50 and about this they say." The overall intent of the fare structure is to collect enough in fares to offset the increase in cost generated by collection the fares in the first place."

I hate to keep kicking a dead skunk, but this was to happen in a county with a population density of less than seven people per square mile and the 2nd lowest per capita income in the state.

Now, WSDOT has given Okanogan Transit 300,000 of your tax dollars to run a system for two yrs. to show the voters that they did not know what they were missing. This is your MVET hard at work. I contend that if WSDOT did not have the extra money, they would spend what they did have a bit more wisely.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 01, 1999.

Rons-

" The overall intent of the fare structure is to collect enough in fares to offset the increase in cost generated by collection the fares in the first place."

You point out a fundamental flaw in the concept of mass transit. You need A LOT of mass. If you will look at this USDOT site you will see that most government operated transit districts of less than 200,000 population collect less than 10% of their operating costs at the farebox. They are basically fighting geometry. If you give frequent service, your operating costs approach infinity. If you give infrequent service, people can't effectively use transit in lieu of other modes of transportation. Wishing that it were different, won't change things. For all but a few population dense urban centers, transit isn't the answer. For the WIDE OPEN SPACES such as the Okanogan, it is tremendously inefficient.

http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Less+Than+200000?OpenV iew&Start=1&Count=50

*

-- Gary Henriksen (henriksen@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.

CORRECTION

I wish to correct my previous posting. The less than 10% farebox revenue recoupment that I indicated applies only to the WASHINGTON transit systems on this site. The smaller systems from other states do a much better job of revenue recovery with fairbox revenues being far better, sometimes in the high 30s. The general comment that smaller systems have higher operating costs does hold, however, you're still fighting geometry.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.

It's a real shame that transit systems are so overlooked by the average person. In Grant County some folks have opened their eyes and have parked their cars.. spending $15.00 a month to get to work and saving as much as $600.00 per month in related expense. Wow, what a deal for those smart enough to park their car for 10 hours a day. Sure beats saving a few hundred or so on license tabs one time per year. Transit can and does provide a needed service that is not limited to the elderly, welfare, or mentally challenged.. it can provide to the worker a daily savings. Now if someone is glued to their car and unwilling to kick back and enjoy the ride, that is their loss. The opportunity is there.. at least for now. But if GTA and other systems are hammered with a 50% reduction in funding everyone stands to lose.. Yes I do own a car.. yes I pay for the tabs, insurance, gas, oil and repairs.. I even take trips on weekends.. but I also use the transit.. and mostly I enjoy the fact that my vehicle isn't out there polluting my air.

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

"saving as much as $600.00 per month in related expense" I look forward with interest to you explaining how parking a car can save $7200 per year.

Not owning a car would not save most people $7200 a year.

Explain please.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.

The answer to that kind of savings is the fact that some people were driving a little over 260 miles per day from home to work.. this is a large county.. and now those folks who work in the southwest corner of the state and live in the Grand Coulee area are able to ride the bus.. at 18mpg that is aobut 14.44 gallons per day just to get to work.. @1.50 per gallon the cost is $21.67 saved in gas money per day times 5 days is about $108.33 per week just in gas.. 433.33 in four weeks.. you add service and wear along with a good savings in auto insurance for not driving that vehicle to work each day and poof.. savings is around 600 per month.. The ride does take a little longer that driving yourself but what of it.. The monthly pass is 15 bucks.. not a bad trade.. grab a few winks.. read the paper.. bs about the super that made so and so do the job over twice.. GTA is a very young transit system.. one that didn't wait for a year of collecting taxes to start up.. it's running close to the edge.. sure they received grants for buses.. and buying smart landed our system with some pretty go used ones from Metro.. but losing MVET money may be a hard blow.. right now they are looking at ways to cut some routes..

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

"some people were driving a little over 260 miles per day from home to work"

1. How many is some. You don't have all that many people in Grant County. 2. Average transit bus costs are about $.40 per passenger mile. That means that SOMEONE is paying $100/workday for these individuals to have the luxury of living 130 miles away from their work site. Since they are paying $.50 per day, that means that SOMEONE is subsidizing them to the tune of $99.50 per day. This comes to $22,000 per year that SOMEONE is paying for these individuals to have the luxury of living 130 miles away from their work site. 3. These individuals are apparently healthy and capable of driving, or they wouldn't have been driving to work in the first place. 4. Someone = the taxpayers, aka US. 5. And you think this is a GOOD THING???

Why don't we just offer them $20,000 a year to sit at home on their butts and watch television? We'll save $2000 per year that we can spend to build general purpose lanes.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 02, 1999.

Now I think Moonhunter's example is an excellent example of the distortions that government subsidies cause. I can buy off on a public transit service as a safety net for those who have no other access to transportation, but there is nothing inherently good about mass transit that cancels out common sense. That there are people who wish to make illogical or uneconomic choices, to drive four hours per day to a job for example, normally wouldn't concern me. If they are paying the costs, that's their problem and their choice. That Moonhunter or anyone else would expect me to rejoice that we were now susidizing this lunacy, flys in the face of common sense. Grant county is HARDLY an area with high population density, it has little motor vehicle congestion, and no appreciable air pollution problem (other than that Moses Lake really stinks sometimes). Why would anyone want to subsidize the economically nonsensical lifestyle of someone who would commute 260 miles/day rather than moving. Where does the idiocy end. Should I live at Cape Canaveral FL and work at Edwards AFB CA and expect the Space Transportation System (the Space Shuttle's real name) to commute me back and forth at taxpayers expense? It's an HOV with two drivers and 4 payload specialists. I can certainly understand the USER of Moonhunter's example doing what they do, it's enormously advantageous to them. What I can't understand is why anyone would think that we, as a matter of public policy, ought to support this lunacy.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 02, 1999.

Gary, Yes, my example is one of the extremes when it comes to usership. But, even for the guy on a minimun wage job there are benes to be had.. Since, part of the crying about transit was that it was just another social welfare program for the non-working population it was good to see our transit system become a part of the economic development of our area.. and since our county is made up of mostly 2 lane roads.. it doesn't take all that many cars to create conjestions.. new industry is moving here and one of the things that is bringing them is our transit system.. they would rather build working space than maintain parking lots.. Personally I would like to save my rig for fun things.. not wear it out from 8-5. GTA will lose 1.3M if this passes.. that will hurt this system.. but transit isn't the only thing that will be hammered..

Moses Lake does stink at time.. August is good when the milfoil is topped out.. ever walked on water?? Just a city joke..

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), September 03, 1999.

"Personally I would like to save my rig for fun things.. not wear it out from 8-5. "

A totally understandable sentiment. But explain to me why you believe that the non-user of transit should subsidize 80-90% of your work travel costs out of THEIR pockets.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 03, 1999.

Moonhunter:

As a former resident of Grant County, I have to agree with Gary's points. How many is "some" who travel such a long distance to the southwest part of Grant County? I'll bet the number of people who commute so far is very small, thereby further distorting and increasing the transit cost burden. It would be interesting to know what the true per-passenger cost is beyond the token fare they are charged. The only things of any significance in the southwest part of the county include Vantage, and Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams. Anyone who works in tiny Vantage probably already lives there. I'll concede that there is probably some commuting to the dams by Grant County Public Utility District employees, but if I recall there are also communities around the dams where employees live. By the way, I have a cousin who lived in Quincy who worked at Priest Rapids dam. He car-pooled to the dam with other workers. Why can't this idea be implemented by others who want to live so far from their work site? Why does the general taxpayer have to pay for these lifestyle decisions?

And by the way, I doubt that transit plays much if any role in corporate decision making about setting up shop in Grant County. The county attracts attention because (a) it has lots of cheap, wide open space and two airports which may still be able to claim title to the longest runways in the world (they are WWII USAF bases), and very importantly, (b) cheap hydro power because Grant County PUD has its own generating capacity. It is some of the cheapest power anywhere, and because Grant PUD generates its own power, the county is better protected against power cost increases and unpredictability from BPA, and deregulation of the private sector.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), September 03, 1999.