+1

What @1 said.

What @1 @2 said.

No roads will be built next biennium if they don't fund transit.

None.

King County voters cannot swallow a $100 flat car-tab fee increase in this economy. It just won't fly and some people will lose the proceeding elections because of it. What is Seattle saying? "Take THAT, reality!"

Simplest solution is to add a 1% SIIT, or State Investment Income Tax.

Right now Obamacare is funded with a NIIT -- a 3.8% tax on passive income, like interest with a reasonable exemption for the middle class.

A SIIT would work with very little paperwork, because it would tax all the things that the NIIT already does, as described here:

1. What is the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT)?

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Inve…

I'd pay the extra money in car tab fees heartily if it meant saving that much in transit service. Also, I just paid my car tabs for the year so I have plenty of time to save up BY RIDING THE BUS.

@4 troll. It's a symbiotic (look it up if you don't know what that means) relationship. The more people on buses, the smoother traffic flows for those in cars. You can't separate one from the other.

How about a citizen's initiative stating that all tax revenue collected in a county can only be spent in that county. I'd love to see how anti-Seattle counties vote on that. They'd either finally acknowledge that we carry their economic asses, or vote against their own economic self-interest, just to spite us. Ha. Go ahead!

@9, seconded.

Totally in favor of this Plan C proposal.

@4, Duh, you idiot.

Even if you never set foot on a bus, and you drive everywhere you go in Seattle, you should happily pay to subsidize transit. Why? Because every bus you see out there equals 30 or more cars off the road. That means an easier commute for you in your car. Gut bus service, and your commute will be far worse than it already is.

You shouldn't be whining about subsidizing bus service. If you had any brains you should be begging for more ways to increase it.

@4, you should move. You'd be more comfortable in a sprawling mess like Houston or Somalia.

@11, slippery slope arguments are stupid. Stop making them.

Lots - LOTS - of people who rely on transit in Seattle live outside Seattle. They need to let their Republican Senators & Reps know this bullshit is bad for them.

@9 Thirded. I came in here to say just this. At what point do the urban voters in this state collectively throw up our hands and tell these regressive hillbillies in the welfare queen counties that we're cutting off their allowances?

@17 +1 I say we cut them off now. King County is going to have to enact Plan B or C anyway. Do it now.

I thought we had a new mayor who was able to work with Olympia.

Is anybody going to mention that the reason why a proposed gas tax increase is going to fund roads is because the state constitution requires gas taxes to be spent on roads? Gas taxes are constitutionally prohibited from being spent on transit. It's not some nefarious anti-Seattle use of tax $, it's directing tax $ to where the state constitution requires it be spent.

If you want to argue that the gas tax increase should be lower, and they should implement a statewide MVET or some other revenue stream for transit, fine. That may be a good idea. But don't imply that there's flexibility to move gas tax $ to transit, because there's not.

@17, at the point where we no longer care about the fact that many extremely low-income people live in all those counties. I hope we don't get to that point, no matter how much we despise their Republican politicians. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it's the answer is cutting the lifeline to poor people in Yakima County.

I will gladly vote to increase the car tab cost to support transit if it is coupled to putting to a public vote bike license plates/rules of the road testing/yearly registration with harsh penalties for anyone bicycling on the public roadway without compliance. Insurance would also make good sense, but I realize there's no infrastructure for that yet.

@12 Because every bus you see out there equals 30 or more cars off the road. That means an easier commute for you in your car.

Well, except for those off hours (the majority of the bus hours actually) where the buses only have 4 people and a driver on them but the bus doesn't magically shrink down to a van nor does the painted dedicated lane or bus bulb sticking out into a lane of traffic disappear.

Congestion tax. Instead if blindly charging all car owners (many of whom also ride the buses, myself included) who happen to reside within the city, and/or encouraging us to drive out of the city to buy gas, while not really touching commuters from the surrounding areas who elect car worshipping politicians who support these anti-transit policies, it'd be nice if we could make those commuters (plus residents who insist on driving in high-traffic areas when they could bus) face the dilemma of paying more to continue their habits.

Toll the main entry points into the city core, and then also raise the parking prices around downtown. That's the true way to turn the tables on the individuals who support these politicians. Until they change their behavior, at least make them pay more for the luxury of driving around our city while voting for politicians who fuck our transit. See you at the next Seahwaks game!

@4

Every year, incrementally, with these levies and tax hikes, Seattle becomes more and more un-livable.

Yet every year the population of Seattle increases. Strange how that happens.

@22 Why don't gas and toll prices reflect the actual costs to maintain the roads and obtain petroleum products (such as funding a significant chunk of our military)? Because externalities, smarty.

@9, you got me behind that initiative. It's either that or say fuck you Washington and make King County our own state telling the rest of the assholes good luck

Ahhh yes the simple solution, jack up vehicle fees for all drivers, to pay for things that drivers probably will never use.

The only way it could work if if you passed it without a vote, or is the start of the New Age Seattle Socialism where laws are passed without public vote or debate?

Goldy, would you just cut to the chase and start comparing the politicians you don't like to Hitler? That would save some bandwidth.

@23 They can take their own advice and turn to private charities for assistance. These idiots vote for senators that block any kind of progress and meanwhile I and all the other residents in the big three are stuck with the bill for their roads, schools and emergency services.

Fuck that. Let's get the equal-tax/equal-spending initiative rolling and they can demonstrate just how bootstrappy they all are.

@23:

I understand your urge to feel some compassion for the rural impoverished, but let's not forget that these are many of the SAME people clamoring about how THEIR tax money is being "wasted on poor people" (which may, in fact include themselves), and furthermore who express a strong desire to be "self-reliant", "independent", and basically free from the evils of "government restriction" in their lives.

So, maybe it would be illuminating for them to spend just a little time reaping what they seek so vehemently to sow.

@24:

I'm all for this on one condition: automobile drivers must also take annual driving tests. What's good for the goose, etc., etc.

@25:

The times of day when transit ridership is low just happen to correspond with times when automobile commuting is also low (e.g. the middle of the day and in the mid-to-late evening), because, you know, many people take public transit to get to JOBS, just like drivers, and are less likely to take trips during the day, because JOBS. So guess what the result is? Yep, congestion is less during the day and later in the evenings, because everybody has already gotten to where they need to go and a no longer clogging up the roads.

And here's another thing that might surprise you: Metro actually takes this into account when scheduling routes, so those that mostly serve commuter corridors reduce the number of buses & stretch out arrival times during the parts of the day when demand is lower, or else extend the service area for an individual bus (by say, switching from a #2 to a #13 route and back during the day), so that more stops can be accommodated with a smaller number of buses on the streets when they're not needed.

People bitching about "I don't use buses so don't come knocking at my door!" Should ask, how does public transit benefit you?

Less traffic and congestion! This 17% is, and I'm reaching into the air for a past Stranger article ON THIS SAME SHIT was that it equals, oh... an extra 28 lanes of traffic. Every day.

-> http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/seatt…

I drive to a P&R and bus, because I can't afford the cost to park in downtown Seattle or Bellevue, and no bus goes to Snoqualmie Pass on a daily basis. Also, 405 is a parking lot clusterfuck during rush hour, in either direction you need to go. It begs for rage on a daily basis. It's much nicer to bus on backroads to the P&R, and drive into the un-fucked darkness on eastbound I90.

Also, the TWO buses that get the closest in North Bend are both going to be cut because of lack of ridership.

Cutting metro service in Seattle slows down commerce from the ports to the rest of the state; does more damage to the roads due to increased wear from extra traffic, making them more expensive to maintain; and just costs everyone more money and precious time in the long run. So STFU already you pansies.

@32 THAT IS HOW TAXES WORK, GODDAMMIT. "Food stamps are being paid for by people who aren't even using them. Way to punish me, assholes!"

If we lived in a world where poor people could pay for the things that they needed, we wouldn't need taxes.

@36,

The whiners embody the maxim "penny wise, pound foolish".

@35,

Many buses that go out to the sticks, or, hell, Tukwila, completely shut down between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and then again between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. Must suck being a suburbanite who works irregular hours.

The myopia of @32 is profound. Drivers don't use buses, but they benefit from the reduction in traffic that mass transit provides. They can't see the cars that aren't there.

@37 in this case, drivers do use uncongested roads. How about floating a congestion tax to drive that point home?

I would more readily support an MVET if it were half the amount or less, and it only funded transit. The 1.5 percent MVET supporters would do well to stop playing coy and pretending that it's a nominal increase. It is not. It would triple my licensing costs (even including the extra fees the state already charges). Are the MVET supporters forgetting that Seattle already voted down an extra $60 licensing fee that was also supposed to go to transit and roads?

....major disconnect; first, major push to get out of your car, then rates are jacked and service is curtailed.

We must have some concessions.

Extend transfer validity to 4 hours so one can catch a movie, a meal, or conduct business.

Isn't the point of a transfer to help you get to your destination, not to provide you for a round trip?

concession (kənˈsɛʃən)

— n
1. the act of yielding or conceding

It seems equally likely Seattle voters will both support spending their own money on transit and theirs and everyone else's on more roads across the state. That is not a particularly bad outcome for the Senate Republicans

@45,

Why would Seattle voters vote for the gas tax increase if they instead vote for local taxes to fund transit? That doesn't make sense; Seattle has always been strongly opposed to "Roads Without Transit".

Now there might be an unintended consequence of doing so. King County as a whole has also been opposed to "RWOT", but much less strongly so. If Seattle goes its own way by buying back its cut hours, the rest of the county may swing towards roads and push it over the line.

I guess the city might have the last laugh on that, though. It could levy the Head Tax, but only on employees from outside the city. Not sure if that would fly with the State constitution but it's worth a thought.