In a response to my op-ed in the Seattle Times, King County Metro General Manager Kevin Desmond attempts to “debunk” our research on Metro’s proposal to increase car tabs by $20 to avoid 600,000 hours in bus cuts.

It turns out Mr. Desmond does not “debunk” anything. Instead he tries to mislead the public with a couple of odd claims and he ironically ends up agreeing with our main point that Metro must become more efficient. The only difference between his position and ours is he wants to make Metro more efficient by spending more money.

First, he says we “distort history” when we identify Metro’s sales tax increase in 2000 as a “tax increase.” He argues the ballot measure, which was approved by voters, was simply backfill for the future revenue Metro lost as a result of voter approval of I-695, and so the sales tax boost should not be called a tax increase. My response:

• Only in King County will you find a government employee who tries to argue that a tax increase is not a tax increase. The measure in fact raised the sales tax rate in King County by 0.2 percent.

• And the measure was not just backfill for I-695 because King County officials promised voters the sales tax increase would actually expand bus service by 575,000 new hours within six years. In fact, we looked at this issue last year and found that Metro officials collected 95 percent of the revenue they said they needed by 2006, but they only delivered about 36 percent of the new bus hours promised to voters.

Second, he says it is unfair to mention the failure of Metro officials to deliver the 700,000 hours of new service they promised from the second tax increase in 2006, called Transit Now. He claims the economy caused sales tax revenues to fall below projections and officials decided to use the Transit Now revenue to fund existing services. My response:

• It is completely fair and reasonable to note the poor performance of Metro officials in delivering on their promise to the public to expand bus service in exchange for higher taxes. Public officials should be accountable for their actions.

• The original ballot measure that voters approved contained a provision that legally restricted the new revenue (about $40 million per year) from Transit Now to fund new service promised from the Transit Now package exclusively. But years later, officials unilaterally amended this section without a public vote and instead, used the money for other purposes. Again, we looked at this issue last year and found that Metro had provided less than 20 percent of the new service it promised from the Transit Now tax increase.

• Since 2000, voters have given Metro 0.3 percent of new sales tax authority in exchange for 1.2 million hours of promised new bus service, but Metro officials have only delivered about a third of that new service. It is likely Metro officials will never be able to deliver all of the new service promised from the two tax increases in 2000 and 2006. These are facts Mr. Desmond would like everyone to forget.

Third, Mr. Desmond claims it is misleading for us to cite research showing Metro’s bus ridership has fallen to near 2007 levels. He says we should instead focus on the first half of this year only, when ridership slightly increased. My response:

• It is misleading, and poor methodology, to cherry pick ridership numbers for just the last few months as a basis to support a tax increase. Ridership this year is still lower than in 2008 and has fallen every quarter for the last two years. It is only this first quarter in 2011 (and perhaps the current quarter) that has shown an increase.

Finally, Mr. Desmond addresses our main point that Metro should cut the inefficient service without raising taxes. He claims the Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF) and Metro’s Strategic Plan do not call for reductions in inefficient or duplicative bus service alone but says the two plans call for the reductions along with increases in more productive areas. My response:

• This does not “debunk” anything, nor does it change our point that Metro should become more efficient. The service guidelines in Metro’s Strategic Plan give officials direction on how to add service and/or reduce service, depending on the agency’s financial situation. Yes, the plans do recommend that Metro becomes more efficient by reducing unproductive and duplicative routes, as we have said and support. It is also true the plans call for service growth in higher productivity areas, which we also support. What we recommend here, is officials should make the cuts to the underperforming routes without raising taxes to increase spending in the other areas.

• Metro officials have also been very quiet about their intentions to reinvest the revenue from the tax increase into more efficient routes as Mr. Desmond implies. This means most of the service cuts that transit advocates are lining up to oppose will still occur, even if Metro receives the additional revenue from increasing car tabs by $20. In fact, here is Metro’s plan that describes how they will do it. Notice how the first half of the document explains the 600,000 hours of cuts and the second half explains how they will reinvest the new money in other areas.

In this case, the concept of raising taxes to become more efficient is backwards and demonstrates the long pattern of issues that placed Metro in this position. Metro bus service is unsustainable and officials have already identified where the “unproductive and duplicative” service remains. To truly become more efficient, officials should cut these “unproductive and duplicative” routes, without raising taxes.

Metro has plenty of money. Its problems have been rising self-imposed costs, overpromising service in exchange for higher taxes and spending the money instead, on other things. Metro’s revenue has grown from $348 million in 2000 to $580 million in 2010, an increase of 67 percent in ten years. During that time, Metro has raised the sales tax twice and even received a cut of homeowners' property taxes (without a public vote), which amounts to 6.5 cents per $1,000 assessed value, or $21 million per year. Furthermore, Metro officials have ironically been giving away their most efficient bus routes to Sound Transit, which may help their bottom line but conflicts with the new performance guidelines in Metro’s Strategic Plan.

When times are good, officials want more money. And now when times are bad, officials still want more money.

When will it ever be enough?

Taxpayers have generously done their part with two sales tax increases and a large share of property taxes, and Metro doesn’t even say thank you. Instead, they ask for more. Making Metro more efficient does not mean officials need more money. Metro officials should cut the unproductive and duplicative routes and live with what they have, just like everyone else has done during this recession.