Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« And This Isn't Campaigning... ... | The Morning News »

Monday, March 5, 2007

A Public Transportation Observation

posted by on March 5 at 19:29 PM

bus.jpg

I start in San Francisco at 7:03 a.m. I’m on foot, with much baggage. A smiling cab driver stops without my hailing him. I get on the Muni instead. Almost everyone’s reading the Chronicle in the bright morning sunshine. Smells like coffee. Foxy grandma tells me she just LOVES my hair. On to the BART, no waiting. Two shiny ladies with impossibly high heels sit down. Lance Armstrong’s number-one fan sits across from them with his fancy bike. I admire the Oakland graffiti. Back in Seattle. The 194 is so full, that I have to stand next to the driver. Bus smells like old beer. Immediately a fight breaks out between a 30-something with a do-rag and a nasty scar, and a 50-something wearing a dirty tie-dyed shirt and a crusty beard. Do-rag is challenging Tie-dyed…. says he isn’t REALLY handicapped. Bus driver threatens to call the Metro Police. Do-rag finally stops, and puts a defiant unlit cigarette in his mouth. Lady with bad bleach job pushes on, kicking over my suitcase. She laughs in my face. She’s amped on more than coffee. It’s 12:06 p.m.

The whole thing makes me wonder if Seattle will really actually ever have smooth and easy public trans to Sea-Tac Airport. It also makes me happy to be home. The Californians were freaking me out.

RSS icon Comments

1

I'm not sure about the 197 to and from Sea-Tac. But I do know Metro 194, which is an express from downtown to Sea-Tac, continuing onto Federal Way. It's fast and it's inexpensive. And it's chock-full of character. Three weeks ago, I heard a youngster arrange a 3rd-party drug deal. COOL!

If the bus isn't sexy enough for you, just wait another two or so years and you'll be able to take light rail.

Posted by Marc | March 5, 2007 8:14 PM
2

Oh man. I meant 194.... thanks

Posted by KELLY O | March 5, 2007 8:20 PM
3

You'll be able to take light rail...ALMOST to the airport. Let's be real here: if you've got luggage, any kind of a transfer at all, even to a short shuttle bus, is far from the same thing as transit TO the airport. American cities have not acquired this ability; check out Copenhagen sometime, where the doors to the train open right there in the main hall of the terminal.

I can suggest some other routes if you want to experience the real hell of long-distance transit in the Bay Area. Anything involving a transfer from BART to Caltrans is good; even better, try connecting from Santa Rosa to San Jose, via Golden Gate Transit from the bus station way out on the lonely highway, interminably through the streets of S.F., then a lovely walk through a civic toilet to Caltrans, where you creakily proceed to San Jose at approximately three miles and hour. Then you get to experience the joy of S.J.'s bus "network".

Posted by Fnarf | March 5, 2007 8:22 PM
4

Hey man, airport transfers are awesome. In Montreal, this super fast express bus goes every 10 minutes right from Metro Lionel-Groulx (where orange and green intersect!) to... a transit station about 1 km from the airport.

Then if you don't want to wait half an hour for the bus (i'm majorly exaggerating, you should really just plan it right ahead of time) to take you the 2 minutes to the airport you're now standing at, you get to run accross hills, freeway offramps, and parking lots to get to the airport. It is actually kinda fun. and the illogic is gorgeous.

Oh yes, but as for criticism. airports are for decadent bourgeois anyway.

Posted by john | March 5, 2007 8:30 PM
5

ahh, memories of home. The bart is great, especially if you live in East Bay, but last time I road it I kinda thought it could use some renovation, just to get it out of that 1960's wood paneling. But yeah, still a 1000 times better than seattle buses.

(P.S. am I the only one that thinks there are a lot more good looking people in Northern California than in Puget Sound?)

Posted by Brandon H | March 5, 2007 8:44 PM
6

Fnarf,

I assume you know that the train to the actual airport will take a whole six extra months to open.

In the scheme of things, not a big deal. John isn't kidding about the horrors of the Montreal system.

Posted by MHD | March 5, 2007 8:44 PM
7

Unless it's a dream episode, your Metro story is a crock. If the bus were as crowded as you claim, there wouldn't have been room for observing the colorful antics of fights and scars and bleached blondes from hell laughing in your face. Most likely, the driver would have been forced to turn away people waiting at stops. The first person he'd turn away would be the schmuck with a suitcase.

Posted by Alvis | March 5, 2007 8:52 PM
8

Even in the lovely bay area BART doesn't go to the Oakland airport. You have to - get this - TRANSFER TO A BUS!!!!!

But people do it all the time. Just like they take the 194

Posted by catalina vel-duray | March 5, 2007 8:57 PM
9

The buses themselves tell the story. The outside, to be seen by genuine people, carry big ads for commercial properties, media, you name it. The inside adverts are for Bus Mechanic of the Year, WIC program news, and other things of interest to nobody. Except maybe fellow bus mechanics.

Bottom line: Real people drive to work. Losers ride buses. I used to commute every day via Metro. Then they caved to Sound Transit, with their fucked-up express-route scheme, which took my ride away. Since I worked right smack in the middle of the downtown transit corridor, with Sound Transit offices next door, I knew when they had a big board meeting. My building's parking lot was sold out! You don't think -they- would ride with the hoi polloi?

Posted by Inside Out | March 5, 2007 9:03 PM
10

bwaaaaahahahahaha....

sorry... had to laugh. it's just funny. i'm from SF and people in SF bitch about how awful the transit is there. seeing SF used as an example of good transit made me smile. not because it may not have been true. it just feels ironic to me.

let's face it. transit is not great really anywhere in the US. (you could argue manhatten's subways are OK). in most cities, if you live in the right spot (walking distance to transit point that takes you very close to your destination without having to transfer), it can be OK, but the fact is that most of our cities have poor transit. we've built our cities around cars.

it's going to take a LONG time and signficant ongoing increases in energy prices (esp. gas) for us to really make the switch to PT...

Posted by pffft | March 5, 2007 10:24 PM
11

I tell ya what you don't want to do is get impatient because you missed the 194 and take the 174 local instead. That was an hour and half to cover 15 miles. Plus, I'll always remember someone getting off their cell phone from arranging a prison visit, and EVERYONE around me breaking into a conversation about their time "inside."

It's nice to have a straight shot to the SF airport, but I still like to fly out of OAK because the airfare tends to be a little cheaper. And since all you have to do is transfer to an airport shuttle bus, it's not particularly taxing. Just gotta make sure you have change to buy the stupid shuttle bus ticket.

Posted by MvB | March 5, 2007 10:37 PM
12

After selling my car so I could afford my last year of college I have been stranded and felt unsafe a multitude of times. I agree with Inside Out (#9) that only losers ride the bus. I live in Seattle, go to school in Seattle and work in Seattle. I find it ridiculous that if I want to go from my work in Fremont to Capitol Hill I have to go all the way downtown and then transfer. I also find it ridiculous that the 5 only goes to Northgate until 7pm. It is always nauseating to ride the 44 any time of day because it always smells like stale cigarettes and beer.
Oh, and since most people who ride the bus are in the service industry why are there more routes for "professionals" who live in mythical places like Issaquah.
Oh, and I also agree with Brandon (#5) there are much more good looking people in SF than Seattle. Maybe it is all the sunshine and all the lack of cynicism and rain.

Posted by Steffany | March 5, 2007 10:42 PM
13

The Sound Transit link to the airport is still a quarter-mile away from the terminal, not IN the terminal. I have a lot of trouble explaining to people what IN THE TERMINAL means, for some reason; I really do mean IN THE TERMINAL, as in, right between Starbucks and the other Starbucks. That's something that escapes American transit designers.

BART also has a transfer at SFO, not to a bus but to another loop train. That's not very clever, but it's a lot better than it used to be for the first 30 years of BART, when for political reasons it stopped in Daly City and you had to transfer to a bus that was inconvenient even by American airport standards.

There are some very comical subway+bus journeys through Queens to get to La Guardia, which at least have the virtue of passing through some fascinating areas of Queens. But it takes freaking forever.

Posted by Fnarf | March 5, 2007 10:50 PM
14

What muni were you on? I take the 14 everyday, and trust me, it never smells like coffee. Some combination of booze, hobo and mcdonald's french fries.

Posted by Andrew | March 5, 2007 11:09 PM
15

Oh, it's not Caltrans (the DOT in cali) it's the CalTRAIN, and it goes 80 miles an hour the 45 miles from SF to SJC, not 3.

Posted by Andrew | March 5, 2007 11:11 PM
16

Oh, I love this story. Because when transit is good, only foxy stylish people will participate! We are doomed to bus rides riddled with crackheads who smell!

Seriously, now. I take the 194 to SeaTac everytime I fly, and to meet visitors coming to Seattle. Have I seen some colorful characters? Sure. I also always see lots of tourists and regular folks. I just can't believe that I can get to or from the airport so quickly for a measly $1.25 - it's not even a 2-zone fare! There are lots of things about Metro I bitch about, but the 194 is definitely not one of them. Gotta agree with MvB @11, though - avoid the 174 at all costs!!

My other regular airport transit involves Newark airport to NYC, where my mom lives. Newark has put in a nice skytrain, which will take you to the train station, and it's pretty easy to take a train into the city, but it's not so cheap (maybe $10?), there's a similar sounding station to Newark Airport (when heading out of NYC) that almost psychs me out every freakin time I'm there, and if you want to know what smelly transit is, head to the east coast. Not that I'm complaining about it - but I'm not about to slag off the 194 in comparison, either.

Posted by genevieve | March 5, 2007 11:52 PM
17

Fnarf, agreed with transit can't get the needs to go inside or next to the terminal thing. The walk from International Blvd to the terminal is a hike with 50 lbs of luggage for my winter escapades to Milwaukee. Then again you won't catch Pat Davis riding the thing in between her flights to Prague.

Posted by Dave Coffman | March 6, 2007 12:23 AM
18

You only had that experience in SF because you were visiting. If you lived there it wouldn't have happened that way. Seriously, Californians are like that. They love putting on a good show for the outsiders.

Posted by monkey | March 6, 2007 6:29 AM
19

I take BART to SFO airport all the time, and I just schlep my bags from the station to the gates (usually Alaska) and it's not a big deal. O'hare is the same way.

And it's not like I'm some sort of glutton for punishment. I fly first class whenever I can afford it, and I always stay at nice hotels. I'm pretty picky, but I just don't see where having to walk is that big of a deal.

Of course, I will grant you that the trek from the train to Midway in Chicago is gross. But so is Midway.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | March 6, 2007 6:31 AM
20

The 174 usually has been an adventure, particularly late at night or on the weekend when it's the only choice. I've never really felt threatened, but then again my basis for fear is the #3 or #11 in Baltimore in the mid 90's....

And "a quarter-mile away" is like saying "a covered five to ten minute walk." Before or after a multi-hour flight contorted in an airline seat, I'd be happy to do that. The walk IN the terminal at most other airports is at least that long. Has no-one else heard of roller luggage?

Posted by golob | March 6, 2007 7:19 AM
21

Seriously, Golob: fly to Copenhagen, and you will be converted. I think it's the best airport in the world. It couldn't be more convenient, and it also has attractive, relaxing finishes and lighting. It's not a horror, unlike every airport I've ever been in in the US, and most of them outside it. Heathrow's fine once you're settled down in the shopping mall, but if you have to transfer terminals, you're fucked; you'll probably get to ride a filthy bus through the bowels of the operation. Paris CDG is a crumbling shithole. New York JFK is the anteroom to the slaughterhouse.

Posted by Fnarf | March 6, 2007 7:59 AM
22

Question: why is is that in Seattle, the "transit police" ride in patrol cars behind buses, rather than riding on the buses themselves, where they can directly address the tiny small acts of nuisance perpetrated by the smelly, the crack-addled, the hoborific, the self-grooming, etc?

Posted by Trey | March 6, 2007 8:00 AM
23

Oh, I am totally with you about JFK, and will add LAX to the horror list. Most large hub airports are dumps.

It is the smaller US airports that become decent. I've found both National and BWI to be pleasant. Even Seatac is pretty good.

My horror of horrors would be a JFK to CDG on an airbus 380 with 800 other people. Ugh.

Posted by golob | March 6, 2007 8:04 AM
24

Link's airport terminal is north and east of the parking garage. It will be 1000 feet away from the north end of the terminal (where Alaska's ticket counters are). That makes it about the same distance from Alaska's baggage claim as the current bus stop -- or about the same distance as a bad spot in the garage.

Sure, it would be even better if it stopped inside the terminal, but come on... Folks are going to find reasons not to ride transit no matter how good or convenient it is. Once it's running, there will be people who complain about the scary long escalator rides out of the downtown transit tunnel.

Posted by Robinev | March 6, 2007 8:22 AM
25

This is why, if I made three times as much money as I do now, I would move to the Bay area. I'm 43 now. I'll be dead before Metro catches up to where the Bay Area rapid transit is now.

Posted by elswinger | March 6, 2007 8:37 AM
26

There's always room for improvement, but I find the more I try to use Metro the more I like it. If everyone had a shiny clean bus running every three minutes from their front door to their office, life would be peachy-keen, but in the real world, you have to plan ahead, walk a few blocks and share the ride with people of varying hygienic talent.

Posted by D Huygens | March 6, 2007 8:51 AM
27

Listen to the "pro-density" Republicans on the Stranger staff diss public transit. Do all the pubbies think that light rail cars come with velvet ropes? Lightweights.

Posted by rodrigo | March 6, 2007 9:06 AM
28

@3 - there will be automated walkways from the station to the terminal - you stand on it with your luggage at your feet.

This is typical of most major international airports - the rail system is not that close.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 6, 2007 9:18 AM
29

This is why I don't ride Metro buses anymore. The last time I tried to ride the #11 from Madison Valley to downtown, a fight broke out between two crackheads who got on the bus (without paying) in front of Deano's, a teenage mother was screaming at her two-year-old child in the back of the bus, and a homeless person with feces-smeared pants made the already awful odor completely intolerable. This was at 4:00 in the afternoon, not some midnight ride up Aurora (which is where it really gets freaky). I've given Metro the benefit of the doubt and tried to use transit in this city on and off for years, but it never seems to improve. Long rides, smelly buses, and the usual homeless/dangerous/drugged-up riders make it all too unpleasant. Metro has a LONG way to go to improve transit in this city before I'll give them another dime.

Posted by Converted Pedestrian | March 6, 2007 9:27 AM
30

"Only losers take the bus". Anyone with this attitude is the PROBLEM with Seattle. If spending money on a car and idling it in traffic and storing it on the street when you're not using it makes you a "winner" then Congratulations!

And maybe Fnarf wouldn't be so fat if he walked a 1/4 mile now and then.

Posted by DOUG. | March 6, 2007 9:28 AM
31

One of my favorite San Francisco bus stories: I was riding the 22 Fillmore and it was a bright, sunny day. I was high, and this was unusual for me to be high...riding a bus. Usually I would walk. Nevertheless, I got on and sat in the back next to a window so I could people watch. Two stops down these young teens got on, dressed in do-rags and baggy pants. They sat behind me and I could smell the weed exuding from their pores. I spent a few blocks listening to their chatter, which was nothing out of the ordinary (chicks, munchies and more chicks). Then we got to a long light stop and suddenly the bus got very, very quiet. Not a sound. For what seemed like a very long time. I literally thought time had stopped and I sat there freaking out. I realized I must be way to high to be riding the bus, cause now something freaky was going on (time stopping) and I was ill prepared to deal with it. I held my breath and waited. Then I realized the boys behind me were tapping me on the shoulder, so I turned, and one whispered, “what the hell is going on?” I looked at him with no answer and likely fear in my face when all of a sudden some old lady coughed in the front of the bus and then another sound came, then another. The two boys and I just fucking lost it and laughed our asses off for about three more stops. I could only make out the word “trippy” through their laughing and I could only (silently) vow to never, ever ride the bus that high again. Man, I love San Francisco.

Posted by Stephanie | March 6, 2007 9:32 AM
32

Smells like coffee and people are reading newspapers? Sounds like you were amped on more than coffee.

Every time I've been to the Bay Area the Muni is jam packed, people can get off anywhere so it is slower than hell, and it stinks like b.o. from hippies and street kids (usually white kids with dreadlocks).

San Fran can have their Barry Bonds and their shitty Muni.

Posted by Muni stinks | March 6, 2007 10:17 AM
33

Perhaps the Stranger staff should just stay off Metro. Every week there is a whiny posting about the unseemly people on the bus. Maybe the low tolerance for urban character in Seattle is why we can't get anything built. Everyone wants transit that is as comfortable as, say, a car...

Posted by tiptoe tommy | March 6, 2007 10:51 AM
34

Fnarf is right. Copenhagen's transit stop right IN the airport is awesome. It boggles my mind that they'd run a rail line all that way and then stop just short of the airport. I guess 4 minutes is manageable, but does suck if you have a bunch of luggage. I imagine they'll have luggage cart stands at the end point.

Although thanks for the link #24. I had previously thought the end point was that giant platform where Airport Way splits off from 518, which would be REALLY far away.

Posted by him | March 6, 2007 10:55 AM
35

#27 - and everyone else who thinks I was dissing -
I don't think I clarified my point in the last paragraph. The nicey-nice folks I encountered in SF were freaky. It was unnatural. I'm so much happier with scrappy Seattle. I'm one of those losers who rides the bus. Everywhere. All the time. I haven't even owned a car since I moved here 9 years ago. I love it.

Posted by KELLY O | March 6, 2007 10:59 AM
36

"My judgement years ago was that bus transit, subsidized 75% operating costs (now 80%), and all capital costs, and hard-pressed to serve far-flung communities, was simply not adequate to the task. Now we are pursuing a technology, rail, that in our circumstances is even more costly and is more poorly suited. Granted, with more and more money, we can extend and underwrite rail--but transit, and transportation generally, will become more and more unproductive, relative to cost vs. benefit. Even if the new round of funding is granted, as it may be, by 2030 the promised 125-mile light rail network will be but half done, and the only way to proceed will be massive additional tax increases. Because capital costs, plus long-term bonds, plus huge operating cost increases, will effectively absorb both of the first two taxes (1996 and 2007).A more sensible and productive course would be not to extend rail in Phase II, and cease work on Phase I. $560 million per mile to UW Stadium is a horrendous cost--and it would be even higher, save the cancellation of First Hill station, in order to "save" $260 million. And, as a general statement, once the vastly higher capital cost is incurred, with long-term financing, the operating cost turns out to be higher with rail than with bus" - somebody much smarter than I.

Posted by sloke | March 6, 2007 11:28 AM
37

Piss up a rope sloke. Everybody knows your numbers are bogus.

Why don't you walk the walk? Go over to Iraq - that's where you neocon right-wingers seem happiest. You, Condi, Cheney and the privateers can all go have a big, petro-lubed circle jerk.

Posted by we_need_transit | March 6, 2007 12:03 PM
38

Stephanie,

I recommend the next time you are high and want a bus trip, get one of those comfy Community Transit buses and go back and forth from Everett, or take the bus to/from Snoqualmie Falls. I haven't been able to find weed for awhile, but sometimes it's just nice to put on my I-Pod and take a leisurely bus ride (and it's cheap for me since my job practically pays for my bus pass.

Posted by elswinger | March 6, 2007 12:20 PM
39

If Southwest Airlines - the easiest goddamn airline to fly ever - wasn't based in OAK, I'd gladly pay an extra $20-40 in airfair to fly out of SFO in order to avoid the shuttle transfer from BART. It's not generally a huge deal, but peak travel times can leave you waiting for 2 or 3 shuttles for one with room for you. I've been there over an hour during the holidays waiting for the shuttle to take me to BART.

But hey, BART is 40 years old... I'm guessing they meant to connect OAK at some point, but couldn't pony up the dough. It only took 30 years to get SFO connected.

SeaTac is making a HUGE mistake by not linking the terminal directly to light rail. Shuttles - in reality - might be a slight inconvenience, but the extra link is a big psychological barrier and will keep a lot of people from taking advantage of the train. Copenhagen (duh), Heathrow (duh), PORTLAND(!!!) for fucks sake... so easy, and most importantly, easier than driving.

And to whomever said you had to connect at SFO, that's not exactly true. BART goes directly to perdy new international terminal, but yeah, just like any large airport in the world, some terminals are far enough that you need to take an internal train... and the the goofy little new SFO totally rules.

Posted by Dougsf | March 6, 2007 12:35 PM
40

OK, I was misreading the light rail plan, the Seattle plan is just 1,000 feet via covered overpass then? Doesn't seem too bad...

Posted by Dougsf | March 6, 2007 12:41 PM
41

we_need_transit, the Ann Coulter of Seattle transit advocates writes

"Piss up a rope sloke. Everybody knows your numbers are bogus.

Why don't you walk the walk? Go over to Iraq - that's where you neocon right-wingers seem happiest. You, Condi, Cheney and the privateers can all go have a big, petro-lubed circle jerk.

Congratulations, we_need_transit, you have shown that Seattle transit advocates have now shown that they're every bit as stupid and insulting and incapable of responding to a rational argument as Ann Coulter and are only capable of flinging feces. Here's a whacky idea, instead of calling sloke's numbers bogus why don't you post some facts of your own? Oh wait, you can't because you're as useless and completely full of shit as any winger over on freerepublikkk.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | March 6, 2007 1:24 PM
42

Oh, and all of the people who are talking about how great Muni in SF is ought to check this out:

San Francisco's Muni Misses On-Time Goal

http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/article.jsp?id=2700&siteSection=8

Muni sucks ass compared to Metro, it combines the slovenliness of the third world with the indifferent command and control bureaucracy of Soviet era Eastern Europe.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | March 6, 2007 1:31 PM
43

Muni buses are the worst! I lived down there for 3 years and avoided the bus like the plague because it was filthy (like SF and the rest of the Bay Area) and filled with way too many people. I ride Metro all the time-it is (resaonably) clean and comfortable compared to Muni.

Posted by Blacksheep | March 6, 2007 1:39 PM
44

The best public transport from the airport is in Portland. $2 to get from the airport terminal to downtown. Took about 20 minutes, it was clean, I had a seat, and the only time it got crowded was near the Rose Garden because there was a Blazer's game that night.

Sigh, why would that be so hard to do here?

Posted by chickencrossing | March 6, 2007 4:32 PM
45

Agreed. Portland transit from the airport is the best deal I've experienced.

Posted by Dougsf | March 6, 2007 5:08 PM
46

Yikes! What's going on up there in Seattle, the pregame for the apocalypse?

If riding SF MUNI is infinitely better than riding Metro, I'd say you've got some serious problems with the system....I haven't ridden Metro since I moved back to SF in 2000, and it seemed OK....

Posted by N Judah Chronicles | March 7, 2007 3:59 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).