Monday, August 22, 2011

Pierce Transit Boundary includes 163 Transit-Hostile Precincts

With presidential elections typically turning out pro-transit voters, Nov. 2012 is a logical choice for Pierce Transit to return to the ballot to return service to pre-recession levels.  But there’s a real risk that history will repeat itself unless the service boundary is redrawn - and soon. Here’s why:
  • Unincorporated Pierce County and far flung towns have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not support any further taxes for transit, as evidenced by three consecutive transit votes since 2007.  There is some evidence showing that voters in such areas have become more hostile to transit votes over time.

  • Service to outer suburbs and unincorporated areas is not cost-effective for Pierce Transit to provide.  In October, the final 15% service cut will effectively cut out Pierce County east of Puyallup, the Key Peninsula, and unincorporated mid-county, helping to reduce per rider costs by a staggering 44%, while at the same time preserving more than a million rides per year versus a plan that included those areas.  Keeping these areas while trying to go the ballot again requires large subsidies per rider, making frequent and attractive service difficult to provide.
  • Revenues from outlying areas don’t justify retaining them (previously covered).  In fact, the expansiveness of the current service territory was built around the assumption that “more area = more cars” and “more cars = more car tab fees”.  That is no longer the case as Pierce Transit has not collected any revenue from car tabs since 2000 and over 70% of Pierce Transit’s revenue now comes from the sales tax.
  • Transit taxation without transit service.  In October, large areas that are taxed by Pierce Transit will have no local, express, Shuttle, or special event service at all.  The situation is bound to become politically untenable very quickly, resulting in more political polarization, which will jeopardize support for any potential transit ballot measure.
  • Due to the recession by October, Pierce Transit will be 42.7% smaller than it was back in 2008.  Service cuts have meant fewer living wage jobs in Pierce County. They have also resulted in less access to jobs and education, while also putting Pierce County at a competitive disadvantage for new economic development.
  • Voters in the City of Tacoma support new taxes for transit by healthy margins - even during special elections in off years, but it can’t balance out numerous precincts in unincorporated Pierce County that consistently vote against public transit service.
  • There is a need for new investments in transit service.  Pierce Transit planner, Tina Lee, indicated at a City Council study session that Pacific Avenue is a corridor ripe for bus rapid transit.  Bus service that is competitive with automobile travel attracts more riders and helps to conserve operating dollars in the long run, but it can’t happen without the infrastructure that levels the playing field for transit.  While King County Metro, Intercity Transit, and Community Transit have been investing in transit options with sales tax rates of 0.8% or 0.9% sales tax rates (or higher), Pierce Transit has languished at 0.6% since 2002.
  • The process for revising a new service area is likely to take around five months (source: TNT). It takes a several months to put together a new ballot measure and to campaign for it.  That leaves a shrinking amount of time for the process to get started.  The Pierce County Council could convene a conference of cities to hammer out a revised service boundary that works.


9 comments:

  1. Perhaps it is time for Tacoma to have its own transit authority. Judging from the numbers and voter statistics, it seems like a municipal transit authority could easily raise more money, operate more efficiently, and possibly make funding a more comprehensive streetcar system a possibility within our lifetimes.

    If rural Pierce County is diluting our pro-transit votes *and* the cost-effectiveness of our service, maybe we need a more focused method for funding transit. Let PT focus on interconnecting our county, and let Tacoma manage its own internal transit.

    Alternatively we could take Sound Transit's subarea equity model and probably achieve the same result without having to create an entirely new transit agency.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have two trains (pun intended)of thought on this:

    One is to go ahead and live with the reduced service and role that PT has. Then, establish a transit benefit district within Tacoma city limits and build out T-link as much as possible. I think that we should have enough political support in Tacoma for that. This approach would certainly allow Tacoma to set itself apart from the suburban cities that surround us.

    The other thought is to go ahead and shrink the PT boundereries so we can expand the hours and frequency of the bus service that we have. To go back repeatedly and ask rural Pierce County to support a service they don't want and can't use is a losing strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Tacoma1 My thoughts exactly. What if we got Tacoma voters to approve building Tacoma transit systems (i.e. streetcars) to meet our needs instead of relying on a transit agency that is intended to serve our county. Does it make sense to have a county RTA run routes that never leave Tacoma city limits? Is that really a county-level service?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another way to look at it: when cities are large enough, they establish their own police department rather than relying on the county's sheriff department. Why not take the same approach for transit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bring back the citizen's street car initiative! When the City Attorney says she'll sue you guys just call her bluff !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Personally,
    I think that we need PT and the Tacoma City Council to embrace street cars to get them on the ballot. At least to have a chance of success at the ballot.

    Seattle City Council is sending a $60 lic fee to the ballot next year for Seattle only transit. Thats on top of the $20 fee county wide they just enacted for KC Metro bus service.

    If PT went to the ballot for bus service county wide, and Tacoma City Council put a local citywide streetcar measure on the ballot at the same time...........would that be so bad? What's the worst that could happen? We end up with the same thing that we have now. On the other hand, we could finally end up with good transit in citywide, county wide, or both.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I easily think a bond measure to convert the Sixth and Pacific Avenue lines (to PLU/Parkland), The Pt Defiance Line, and even possibly S19th (Kay Street) and Portland Avenue lines using modest infrastructure (750 vdc Streetcar; in street; with TSP! - Im sure you can get new start funds for OIW/Inkeon/Skoda type cars) would be a fairly easy sell. Not to mention the lines share a fair amount of common trackage in stadium and 6th reducing cost; plus you have enough lines to have a sustainable operation, and not just a one off route.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great comments, you guys. I think you all have pieces of the puzzle.

    I think PT is going to stay our operator, but the City could bolster service within the city by creating a transportation benefit district and then contracting for additional service where we want to see additional growth.

    You could fund a few late night Route 1 trips within Tacoma city limits in addition to some transit priority projects and bus amenities. Streetcar operations could also come from that pot of money.

    Finding the funding within the City's existing options for local revenue is going to be the hard part, but if we create a pipeline of projects we can do it.

    The service boundary is going to need to be reduced to go back to the ballot - period. We could go back after November 2012, but then we give up the presidential election. Going before then would just beg a repeat of what we just went through and do nothing.

    I'm going to keep working on this, there are more posts coming on this issue. Stay tuned everybody.

    ReplyDelete