Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
Just slash the service in the areas that voted against it to zero.
Kill the funding for the roads there and let them grok what THAT means.
For example: areas with a high ridership, low car ownership and highest support for the Prop should be be last to experience significant service cuts.
I've deliberately left out income as a factor, since the first thing the naysayers would likely start kvetching about would be that low income people don't support the service sufficiently through the existing tax structure - even though they probably pay more directly for service usage - and so why should THEY get a handout from everybody who doesn't want to support more service? The formula above is based primarily on usage, need (car owners at least have an alternate option available to them which many of the working poor don't), and support.
An example would be Wallingford or Fremont or Greenwood which use transit or bikes to commute, but everyone pretty much owns a car.
This anti-tax bullshit has to stop. The problem is not waste or fraud or misuse, it's lack of revenue.
I hear ya. I sympathize.
I'd take a different, less political strategy if I were in charge of Pierce Transit. If you've got to cut service by 35%, then your last priority should be route preservation. Instead focus the remaining service on fewer routes--the most popular routes--and make them just as frequent and reliable as they ever were. The remaining, high-performing routes can serve as a model for how effective bus service can be when the day comes that residents can consider expanding it again.
Now, my apolitical approach probably produces the same result as "Just slash the service in the areas that voted against it to zero."
The political downside of that outcome, regardless of how it's motivated, is that voters in those areas will be even less inclined to vote for transit the next time around. Which is fine. The answer is that if you concentrate great service in fewer areas then those no voters get offset by the constituencies that take root in the transit corridors.
Not a big fan of democracy, eh? And how come the world hasn't come to an end after two years of 'cuts'. I keep hearing it's gonna be Mogadishu on the Sound around here but me and the missus went downtown for dinner and a movie last weekend and had a splendid time. No sign of Technicals with packed with armed Somalis....mind you we didn't swing down the rainier valley.
Popular routes in dense areas connected to other transit services (e.g. rail like ST commuter Sounder) should be maintained.
Rural routes ... slashed to the bone. Or dropped.
Ones that run real real slow cause the highway is congested and there is a rail alternative - dropped. Then watch those people stew in traffic.
Isn't a special election in February absolutely the worst opportunity to bring a transit measure to the ballot? I've got to think they'd have a great chance of passing a similar measure in November 2012.
And I can't help noticing the one opponent's use of the word "generous." There's all kinds of "just don't get it" wrapped up in that one word. If I were running the no campaign, I'd use that word too, but I bet that fellow sincerely just doesn't get it. Tell me, if you're an affluent, educated person, which place would you rather live in?
A. A place where the prevailing view is that transit is a charitable service provided to the less fortunate.
B. A place where the prevailing view is that transit is one of the key cogs in said place's economic engine.
Nope, those people don't deserve anything over $15/hr. I'm sure there are many people out there who would be happy to drive buses around all day for that amount.
If you want people to pay for these things, you have to rectify the unfair nature of property tax in Washington.
Continuing to lade on sales taxes, fees, and income taxes when assets are inequitably taxed does not work.
Thank God, now those stupid buses won't get in the way of my car and spew black diesel fumes out..speedier travel for all.
Needless to say, I was not going to spend my life in Sodom-meets-Hooterville, so we dumped that property in favor of Chez Vel-DuRay. I still see one of the cops from time to time. Almost all of those couples are divorced now, and about half the houses are in foreclosure.
Forgive the ambiguity. I wasn't saying it was a mistake to go to the ballot when they did. I'm saying they'll stand a much better chance if they go back to the ballot in Nov. '12.
I've stopped feeling sorry for my fellow 'po folks since they're either too lazy to vote in things that benefit them, or too dumb to vote FOR the same.
There's ALWAYS more poor people than rich people, yet they refuse to vote for ANY new taxes, even taxes that target the "rich" because they MIGHT be rich SOME day.
Of course, the poor will be the go to ones for quotes on the evening news, whining about "They can't cut our services!!!"