The Tacoma Pierce County Chamber of Commerce has failed to do even a basic level of analysis of the benefits and impacts of Pierce Transit Proposition 1. A rational approach would have examined the pros and cons, asked hard questions and, being a business entity, had some numbers to justify their resolution's claims. But not this time. So since they didn't even bother to conduct even a cursory economic analysis, let's give it a try.
What is the value of transit? (Or, what is the cost of having a car-dependent city?)
A good way to look at the value of public transit is to look at the sheer costs of the predominant alternative: automobiles. Strictly personal costs for car travel include: vehicle payments, car loan interest, gasoline, insurance, licensing, registration, parking, and vehicle repairs. According to AAA, the annual cost of car ownership including these variables is roughly $8,946. This does not count any money lost from parking tickets, traffic violations, health impacts to the driver, or lost life due to collisions. This is nothing new.
 |
| Most money spent on cars leaves the local economy. |
What is the impact to the local economy of transit service cuts past and future?
 |
| More Service Cuts would mean less money for local economy |
Pierce Transit has already implemented a 43% service cut since 2007. Daily ridership has shrunk from 51,055 in 2007 to 36,015 in 2012 - a difference of 15,000 boardings, or somewhere in the range of 7,500 people/cars. The local economic impact of this lost transit ridership is then roughly -$50,000,000 annually.
If Proposition 1 fails in November, Pierce Transit is slated to have to shrink roughly another 50%. If we calculate this impact to the local economy proportionally by the ridership reductions, that number comes out to another 18,000 boardings or 9,000 riders - an additional economic impact of -$63,000,000 to the local economy each year. In total, more than a hundred million dollars that could have stayed in Tacoma each year, in the form of good jobs for bus drivers and money in people's wallets, will head out of town in the form of car payments and gas, if Proposition 1 fails in November.
If Proposition 1 fails in November, Pierce Transit is slated to have to shrink roughly another 50%. If we calculate this impact to the local economy proportionally by the ridership reductions, that number comes out to another 18,000 boardings or 9,000 riders - an additional economic impact of -$63,000,000 to the local economy each year. In total, more than a hundred million dollars that could have stayed in Tacoma each year, in the form of good jobs for bus drivers and money in people's wallets, will head out of town in the form of car payments and gas, if Proposition 1 fails in November.
On the Chamber's Bad Accounting
With this clear of a picture of the costs of car ownership and the potential impact to local discretionary spending and financial solvency, why is the Chamber so focused on incremental differences in sales tax rates? Because to them, this analysis does not exist. There simply is no opportunity cost and no benefit - only an impact from higher sales tax rates. The members of the Chamber are not confronted with the prospect of a car as an additional cost in their budget, because they already have cars. The Chamber does not see the benefits of transit and only see the costs. Unfortunately ignoring the benefits of a public service, while only highlighting the public costs is just a form of bad accounting that obscures the coming red ink to be spilled on Tacoma's local small business community. At bare minimum, Tacoma deserves better economic analysis from the Chamber than a simple addition and comparison of local sales tax rates.
A brief note on young people, Tacoma's affordability
Since the Chamber uses anecdotes to justify their resolution, let's talk about anecdotal evidence for a minute. Anecdotally, I have yet to meet a young person who has not indicated to me that a car is a "burden" on their finances and that they wish that they had other alternatives. I have spoken with many young people in Tacoma. Knowing my level of involvement in these issues, they voice their frustration with the transit cuts in Tacoma. Some tell me that if it gets worse, that they will have to move away because they can't get to work or school. I have also talked with others who have purchased and are working to pay for vehicles because of the service cuts.
I want to remind readers that a great part of the allure of Tacoma is its affordability, especially for young families. If you take away viable transit service from that equation, we erode part of that advantage and cede to King, Thurston, and Snohomish counties any resident that wants decent bus service as a part of their livable community.
I urge the Chamber to reevaluate this proposition quantitatively, and to reconsider their resolution.
I want to remind readers that a great part of the allure of Tacoma is its affordability, especially for young families. If you take away viable transit service from that equation, we erode part of that advantage and cede to King, Thurston, and Snohomish counties any resident that wants decent bus service as a part of their livable community.
I urge the Chamber to reevaluate this proposition quantitatively, and to reconsider their resolution.
