For the past several weeks, since hearing news of Metro’s dismal budget outlook (higher than projected fuel costs, lower than projected sales tax revenues), we transit types have been wondering whether we’d be faced with service cuts, fare hikes higher than the original 25-cent proposal, or both. Folks, hold on to your bus passes: We might not have to deal with either.

Today, Ron Sims is proposing a “plan C” that this bus chick can get behind. From the KCCK himself:

I fundamentally believe that a robust transportation network that moves people between their homes and their jobs is critical to our long term economic prosperity. An accessible, reliable and affordable public transportation system is vital to our community. Moreover, reducing the number of cars on the road is essential to reducing carbon emissions and protecting our environment. Thus, we must do all we can to keep our buses running and maintain our existing transit service. We must also remain steadfast with the implementation of the service expansion we promised voters when we asked them to approve the Transit Now initiative.

Therefore, I am proposing a measure that will not reduce bus service and will limit our [fall] fare increase to 25 cents … with another 25 cent increase in 2010.

[…]

These fare increases, however, by themselves will not be enough to make up the financial shortfall over the next two years. Rather than reducing services, I further propose that the shortfall be covered by the sale of some Metro capital assets such as the Bellevue Metro site worth approximately $18 million and by cutting capital projects totaling approximately $65 million. In addition, I propose to spend operating and capital reserves of approximately $45 – $60 million. This is an appropriate time to use these rainy day funds given the unprecedented financial storm pounding Metro today.

I admit I don’t fully understand the implications of the asset sales (the Bellevue property, at least, is not currently being used), and Lord knows I’m not a fan of fare increases, but given Metro’s funding constraints and service obligations, this seems like a reasonable (and reasonably creative) response to the crisis. Now is the time for more transit and more incentives to ride, not cuts. Sims’ proposal keeps us from losing ground–at least until we can identify more progressive (and predictable!) sources of transit funding.