Spare change for the bus

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

SPARE CHANGE FOR THE BUS: Suffering from a transportation mobility problem of his own, Bellingham City Council member Terry Bornemann hobbled in from recent hip surgery to cast the critical deciding vote for what might keep public transportation options from being crippled next year.

Earlier this spring, Mayor Dan Pike proposed forming a transportation benefit district (TBD)—a special purpose taxing district—as an instrument to raise revenues that might assist transit service inside Bellingham. A countywide transit levy narrowly failed in April, although the measure passed strongly (65 percent) in Bellingham precincts. As a result of the failure of that levy, Whatcom Transportation Authority plans to trim service countywide as early as September. An independent contract with the city could blunt that threat for Bellingham, a contract paid for by a sales tax increase that might be placed on the ballot in November.

While—as council member Seth Fleetwood observed—Bellingham City Council already has the authority to achieve everything contemplated by a TBD (the city can place sales tax proposals in front of voters; and the city can enter into contracts with transit service providers), the special purpose district—the mayor responded—is a means of reassuring voters how (and how long) the revenues will be used.

Narrowly approved this week by council, the benefit district has a lifespan of 10 years. Next up, an embattled council must decide whether to ask voters to feed this new creature with a two-tenths of a percent (.2¢) sales tax increase.

Should voters approve those revenues, the city could contract with WTA for restored bus service. Since 2007, Western Washington University has maintained a comparable independent contract with the transit authority for increased bus service to campus, paid—as approved by a vote of students—through a small tuition hike.

In one sense, the TBD and proposed tax attempt to scoop up the support and goodwill expressed toward transit service left on the table by Bellingham voters last spring. In a broader sense, the effort responds to the collapse of more than $28 million in city revenues as a result of a disastrous downturn in the economy, revenues that might otherwise fund a range of projects like new sidewalks and bike paths, and the resurfacing of aging roadways. Unlike the feds, state and local governments cannot run deficits and are required by law to pay as they go for these projects.

Council member Stan Snapp was absent for the initial public hearing that debated the merits of a TBD, but he roared to life this week in opposition to the concept.

Snapp said he believed the proposal is isolated from the broader discussion of long-term capital facilities needs (he serves on a committee that is expected to produce a report on these needs later this fall) and the long-term financial plans of WTA (like Pike and council member Jack Weiss, he serves on the WTA board). He joined a strong minority of council members in questioning whether this tax was the right tax to place before voters at this time.

“Can this TBD proposal stand the scrutiny that long-term planning requires for both COB and WTA?” Snapp asked. “I don’t believe it stands the sniff test beyond keeping the current Bellingham-only buses on the road.” He added, “This entire process flies in the face of good, systematic and orderly planning.”

His disapproval was met with a challenge from the mayor, who admitted the pace of the proposal—racing to get on the November ballot—is not ideal.

“We can argue about how we might reallocate dollars if there are funds in the system,” Pike said. “If you don’t get those funds back, you can argue about how you might allocate them theoretically until you are blue in the face.”

Stressing an urgency to respond before transit cuts occur, Pike noted, “If you make cuts in a transportation system, after a year it is really difficult and costly to get people to trust you enough to get back on the bus. They will have found other alternatives.

“It’s important,” the mayor added, “that we continue our leadership in providing people options besides driving.”

The division of Bellingham City Council on the issue is, in part, a reflection of mixed signals arriving from the WTA executive board, concerned that Bellingham’s efforts might siphon away support for WTA’s own comprehensive revenue planning.

The WTA board probably over­estimates its own readiness to place a second attempt at countywide funding in front of voters; and just as likely overestimates the chance such a measure might pass: A countywide levy requires the county’s conservative voters, living in rural areas underserved by transit service, to agree to tax themselves to support levels of service largely invisible to them, basically to agree to pay for something they cannot or will not use. In the current economic climate and widening political divide, we place the chance of that public generosity at zero.

“Most of the people in the county don’t use transit,” Pike observed, “and feel justified in their vote. If cuts occur, they will not have missed a thing.”

’hamsters, using the service, support the service. The advantage of a TBD, which municipalities like COB have the authority to create, is it focuses where service will be supplied and collects operating revenues from the visible beneficiaries of the service. WTA might find such a finance tool useful, but lacks authority from the state to create one.

Nine years ago, WTA expanded its board to include more representation from Whatcom’s smaller, outlying cities. The effect was that the influence of Bellingham—by the far the largest user and beneficiary of WTA services—became diluted and defocused WTA efforts in urban areas where support (and density metrics) for transit is greatest.

The WTA board, recognizing the county’s deadweight, deadbeat drag on urban services, should welcome efforts to keep ridership from collapsing. Instead, illustrating their division, the board frets over (and narrowly rejects) Bellingham’s apparent willingness to pay its own way, believing those efforts imperil WTA’s own chances at a more comprehensive funding package down the road.

But maybe scattered contracts are the way through for WTA, for now. Sometimes piecemeal is the only meal.