Or that’s the idea anyway.
Metro has sent out a reminder that the King County Council votes next week to implement a two-year $20 car tab fee, or to let the voters decide in November whether to cut 600,000 service hours. Yeah, that’s 600,000 service hours. The stakes are high for commuters.
The King County Council will vote on Monday, August 15th. Public testimony has been closed–the Council will take final action at the August 15 meeting.
Included in the Metro reminder, titled “Update on Congestion Reduction Charge, Service Cuts Proposals” was this:
Metro GM debunks myths
Metro General Manager Kevin Desmond recently wrote a letter correcting inaccuracies published in a Seattle Times op-ed.“In a recent op-ed in the Seattle Times, the Washington Policy Center distorted the history of Metro’s revenues and services,” he wrote. “It twisted the recommendations of the Regional Transit Task Force and the aims of Metro’s new strategic plan. And it confused our guidelines for achieving efficiency with the flat-out loss or degradation of service—the kind of cuts that the public in recent weeks has dramatically risen up to oppose.” Read the entire letter here.
Here’s where I get thoroughly conflabberghasted. Kevin’s letter to the Council says:
“Nowhere does the Transit Strategic Plan or the Regional Transit Task Force recommend cutting 600,000 hours, or 476,000 hours, or even one hour of service for the public.
What both do call for is getting more productive and more efficient use out of each transit dollar by reducing or eliminating routes with fewer riders, restructuring corridors that may, for example, have both regular and express buses on the same route, and reinvesting those service hours into routes that more people would use – all while ensuring that geographic areas and pockets of low-income residents who heavily rely on bus service get a fair share.
The WPC twists those guidelines out of context as if they only apply to reducing the size of the system, as if you could simply whack the lower-producing routes and declare, “problem solved.” No, those guidelines call for reducing inefficient or redundant routes and reinvesting those hours in routes that more people would use.”
And yet, Metro’s own website shows a proposed cut of 600,000 service hours here. And here. And, well, all over the place. They even made maps of proposed route cuts. Maybe the Transit Strategic Plan and the Regional Transit Task Force aren’t recommending cutting 600,000 service hours but Metro seems to be. Unless this is all a scare tactic, eh?
If I’m missing something folks, clue me in. I just don’t see how Metro’s messaging and Kevin’s letter make sense together. To be fair, Kevin’s letter is the very first time I’ve seen any Metro representative (and I’ve talked to a few in person recently) say that riders need to get where they’re going. And he does, which I totally appreciate.
Regardless, I guess we’ll have to wait until Monday to see what’s next in the Metro saga. Til then, visit www.kingcounty.gov/metro/
Metro is not recommending cutting 600,000 service hours. It is not in their plans and recommendations. It becomes a necessity for them to throw out their plans and cut 17 percent of their service if they don’t have a new income source to match decreased sales tax revenue. They can’t borrow money for their operational expenses.
Thanks, Michael.
What Michael said, plus:
This report was requested by King County Executive Dow Constantine, who asked Metro to prepare a preliminary list of cuts/reductions, based on the assumption that no new revenue would be found (i.e., the $20 tab fee is not enacted).
Unfortunately, this fee expires after 2 years, and even if it didn’t, it merely slows down Metro’s burn-rate through its capital. If the economy (read: sales tax revenue) doesn’t pick up, and if a new revenue stream to fund Metro isn’t found (which requires the state legislature’s help), we’ll be right back here in 2 years, but without any float to burn through.
To add insult to injury, DC’s debt-ceiling deal cuts Transportation spending by ~ 30%, which means that money Metro was relying on to replace buses and pay for other non-operational expenses may not show up, meaning they’ll still have to cut service by 6% or so (on top of the 17% without the tab-fee).
Hopefully none of this happens, the Council enacts the Congestion Reduction Charge on Monday, Congress rearranges some $ and we get our buses, and we can all get to work on time.
-jeff
It may seem like a semantic distinction, but what Desmond is pointing out is that there’s an overall level of X service hours that Metro provides (and can’t afford to provide if they can’t raise the funds somehow). Now, people have recommended that Metro reallocate those hours so that under-used routes get less and at-capacity routes get more service. But the total service-hours would remain the same. WPC is suggesting that under-used routes get cut, without a reallocation. Those 600,000 service hours would just go away. The “plans” that you’re referring to, as Michael says, are just the budget-axe effects in the case that they can’t secure funding.
This is the classic “guns vs. butter” conversation. Metro is saying that hey can move 600k hours to different routes, not stop providing those hours – hence the “we’re not cutting service in total”.
But if the increase does NOT go through – then there will be cuts in service.