Now that the election is over, I continue to be amazed that the hyperbole JUST KEEPS ON COMING from the pro-MVET people. It defies logic, but maybe that's the point. This is not a logical issue with them; it is an emotional issue. It is philosophical in nature, what passes in lieu of religion for those who don't necessarily believe in religion. Case in point: This was a relatively trivial cut to the state and local budgets. It can be argued anywhere from 2% of overall to 7.5% of discretionary spending. This constitutes an extremely modest reduction in overall taxes, actually no reduction at all, merely a shift in the slope of increase. Add in the federal taxes paid, this is a trifle of the total tax burden. Clearly, for those functions or individuals TARGETED to take the cut, it's 100%, but in the grand scheme of things, this is a modest and incremental sort of cut. These are manageable numbers, and certainly do not warrant the sort of strident "sky is falling" rhetoric that continues to be rained down upon our heads by the pro-MVET crowd. Another case: Transit in this area has a significantly higher subsidy than in most locales. It is NOT unreasonable to expect that either users will pay a higher proportion of total costs than currently or the system overall will be cut back to something far more cost-effective than it is now. Either would be consistent with what MOST major metropolitan areas have for transit systems. Neither is a particularly extreme position. Local transit has gone WELL BEYOND a basic system for transit dependent people. MetroKC has gone as far as to build Park n Ride garages at $20,000 PER SPACE in an attempt to get more ridership. Yet pro-MVET people continue to demagogue that the 58% who voted for I-695 are "mean-spirited" and are callous self centered people who are out to hurt the poor. In the recently released proposals for cutting to cut up to ONE-THIRD of Metro KC transit, it was indicated that the AVERAGE bus service on this third of the system is LESS THAN NINE PASSENGERS PER HOUR.

[Sims actually has targeted the agency's least productive bus service. The runs in question carry an average of 8.86 riders per hour, Metro officials said. http://www.tribnet.com/] Let
fs look at a little logic and reason here. Even Part-time drivers get up to $18.00/hr (http://www.metrokc.gov/ohrm/psd/transit.htm). By the time you toss in medical and dental benefits, retirement, and the employers half of social security, that
fs $25.00/hr easily. By the time you get done with maintenance, fuel, etc., Metro was paying $92.45 an hour for OPERATING EXPENSES in 1997 (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0001/$File/P0001.PDF) The basic bus costs $270,000 (articulated $435,000) and has a life expectancy of ten to 12 years so you need to throw in ANOTHER $500 a week, call it $10.00 per hour for capital replacement of buses. Capitalization costs for park n rides, bus shelters, etc, were $32 million in 1997, about one-half of the annual cost of rolling stock. By the time we get done, that
fs at least $110/hour. Now I would submit that $110/hour is a little pricey for carrying less than nine passengers during the course of an hour. And I would submit that you don
ft save much in pollution or in energy when you push a 300HP-turbocharged diesel for an hour to move nine people. And I would submit that you do a heck of a lot of wear and tear on the roads when you push a 15 to 18 TON bus for an hour to carry less than nine passengers. And these figures, if Ron Sims is to be believed, apply to ONE-THIRD of METRO. And given that King County is the most densely populated county in the state, THE STATISTICS FOR THE OTHER COUNTIES ARE LIKELY TO BE AS BAD OR WORSE. So once again I would ask the pro-MVET people to sit down and do a little basic arithmetic, prior to demonizing or defaming I-695 supporters. These people went to the ballot box and won a modest victory that SLIGHTLY changes government funding. They did not plant bombs, they did not use terrorism, they did not build barricades or revolt. They exercised their vote to make a small (and in my opinion much needed) change in the direction of government funding. Do the math, and give them a break. They
fre human beings too, and entitled to have (and vote) an opinion different tha

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.com), November 08, 1999

Answers

It ain't hyperbole, it's hypocrisy. A subtle but meaningful difference.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), November 08, 1999.

If you look at the figures that METRO is putting out, the cost of operations are SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE for the marginal cuts they are making than for those they reported to the feds. From the Tribune Sunday (http://www.tribnet.com/news/quick_scan/1107b11.html): King County will lose $10.5 million for public health programs, $5 million for roads, $4.05 million for criminal justice and $50.7 million for transit during fiscal year 2000.

Under Sims' proposed February cuts, South King County alone would see 59,312 hours of bus service disappear - a move that would affect 525,767 riders annually, Metro said.

$50.7 Million/59,312 hours = $855/hr for the service cut. That's ALMOST $100 per transit rider.

$50.7 Million/525,767 = $96.43 per rider.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 08, 1999.

Nice work Craig

-- ERAmerican (william.reagor@guidant.com), November 08, 1999.

Craig,

It boils down to those that work will pay for those that are plain lazy and will not work beyond that which will get the next "free load"

-- Jim Labyak (jimlab@msn.com), November 08, 1999.

Just had to express appreciation at Craig's submission above. Excellent.

-- DW (tux@tro.com), November 10, 1999.

Jim,

Does that apply equally to both "welfare queens" and SUV drivin' CEO's who get rich off the minions who earn 1/1000th of their salary?

-- The Grouchy Marxist (chez@u.washington.edu), November 10, 1999.

Craig--"King County will lose $10.5 million for public health programs, $5 million for roads, $4.05 million for criminal justice and $50.7 million for transit during fiscal year 2000.

Under Sims' proposed February cuts, South King County alone would see 59,312 hours of bus service disappear - a move that would affect 525,767 riders annually, Metro said. $50.7 Million/59,312 hours = $855/hr for the service cut. That's ALMOST $100 per transit rider. $50.7 Million/525,767 = $96.43 per rider."

Umm, maybe I missed something, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Based on your first paragraph, it appears the $50.7M is for *all* of King county, while the 59K hours && 525K riders only represent south King county.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 10, 1999.

What comes out in the media doesn't make this process easy, but from the METROKC News website (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/110499.htm) "Cuts in service by June 2001 total 1,100,000 annual hours out of current 3.3 million annual hours." For a transit savings of $105.7 million annually. That's still $96/hr, about what was shown in the top paragraph. You appear to be correct, I used the cutback figures for the county and the monetary savings for the whole system. That's why the figures in the two paragraphs were so different. I STAND CORRECTED. I am RELIEVED to discover that the (less than) nine passengers per hour on these runs only cost us $10.75 in expenses (above and beyond what they paid in fares, that is. Fare recovery for the system as a whole is about 21% so it is apparent that the runs being cut really are some of the least cost-effective. Hopefully, many people will be able to adjust there schedules to take the less frequent bus trips, since if these buses are only carrying 8+ people an hour, they obviously aren't operating anything near capacity currently. Also, please remember these are operating costs, not capital costs.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 10, 1999.

Metro should pull their Radio (recruiting new Drivers) Commercials. They could save a few dollars.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.