Tuesday, November 25, 2008
City The Real Problem With Metro
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Yesterday, the Seattle/King County Municipal League released a report finding that King County Metro's bus service is too expensive, that buses are frequently late and overcrowded, that the agency isn't sufficiently transparent, and that operating costs are growing much more quickly than service. The most interesting, underreported, and potentially significant finding, however, was that the formula Metro uses to allocate bus service hours is wasteful and woefully out of date. Currently, 40 percent of new Metro hours go to East King County, 40 percent go to South King County, and just 20 percent go to West King County, which includes Shoreline and Seattle. (The county adopted the policy, known as 40-40-20, in 2001, ostensibly because the suburban areas were growing faster than Seattle and weren't well served by transit). The vast majority of new Metro riders, meanwhile, continue to come from the West King County subarea, where population density is more than twice as high as in the East and South King areas. Transit ridership in the West subarea is three times that of the East subarea, and five times ridership in the south. Given all that, the Muni League report concludes, the 40-40-20 split "lacks an understandable rationale" and should be abolished in favor of a more rational, less politically motivated division of resources.
For riders, and Metro as an agency, the implications of a policy allocating bus hours based not on who could use transit in theory (suburbanites commuting many miles to work) but on who actually is using it would be enormous. For Metro, which is facing a $45 million shortfall, it could help balance the budget. Because so many suburban buses still run virtually empty (while urban buses are crammed past capacity), the cost per boarding in outlying areas is significantly higher—$7.27 in the East subarea, and $4.79 in the South, compared to $3.64 in the West. Shifting buses to the West subarea would make the system as a whole cheaper, more efficient, and more rational. For riders, it would mean more new buses where people actually want them—along crowded routes in urban areas, where many buses are running more than 20 percent over capacity. A change in policy would be a relief to riders who now wait half an hour or more to ride crowded, in-city buses—and at little cost to suburban routes that aren't in high demand to begin with.
Share via
1
Speaking as someone who is stuck, hopefully on a temporary basis, in Shoreline, it sucks that the bus only runs every hour on Sundays. It makes trips take twice as long and it sucks being in a wheelchair, stuck in the rain at a stop with no cover for a whole fucking hour!
2
I've lived and taken Metro in both the East subarea and the West subarea, and I've seen just as many crowded buses in the East as the West. I recognize that there are more packed-beyond-capacity buses in the West, but there is definitely demand in the East.
Sure, allocate more new transit dollars to the West than the East, but I don't think taking bus service away from the East will help anything--especially not the climate or traffic or sanity of the riders who have few Eastside options as it is.
Sure, allocate more new transit dollars to the West than the East, but I don't think taking bus service away from the East will help anything--especially not the climate or traffic or sanity of the riders who have few Eastside options as it is.
3
In my own personal and self-designed opinion, Seattle really needs to be a city/county. Soon.
Or should flex some muscle at least!
Or should flex some muscle at least!
4
The bus tunnel is a joke. Please Seattle, build a subway already. We don't need more buses, we need something rapid and above or below street level. Hopefully lightrail will work.
5
It's time for Seattle to demand 80 percent of the transit funding goes to Seattle - if the rest of king county wants dollars they need to stop driving and start using transit.
And if they don't like it, we should take over Metro and cut loose the suburbs to run their own service.
And if they don't like it, we should take over Metro and cut loose the suburbs to run their own service.
6
Metro bus service should be 100% free to ride, 100% subsidized!
No tolls for roads or bridges, no fare for buses.... Equality.
No tolls for roads or bridges, no fare for buses.... Equality.
7
Here's better way to achieve these sort of optimizations than the political process: privatize METRO and let them try to make a profit.
If you believe in transit subsidies, give them a $0.10/passenger/mile subsidy. The political process could argue about the appropriate level of subsidy instead of about the operational details of the business.
An extra bonus of this plan is that it destroys yet one more government-worker union.
If you believe in transit subsidies, give them a $0.10/passenger/mile subsidy. The political process could argue about the appropriate level of subsidy instead of about the operational details of the business.
An extra bonus of this plan is that it destroys yet one more government-worker union.
8
Dammit, Will, Eastsiders CAN'T take the bus if it doesn't EXIST. Those are the very people who need to be taking the bus more, not less. You have to think beyond your little bubble about what is best for the region.
Also, if you want Metro to lose all of those Eastside dollars--Bellevue, Redmond, and Issaquah residents all pay taxes too--good luck to you (and me) trying to take the bus anywhere.
Also, if you want Metro to lose all of those Eastside dollars--Bellevue, Redmond, and Issaquah residents all pay taxes too--good luck to you (and me) trying to take the bus anywhere.
9
And can we please, please, please synchronize the bus system with the ferry system? Please? For someone with the host of mental illness issues I apparently possess, it is ineffably infuriating to watch the bus pull away from the ferry terminal AS THE FERRY IS UNLOADING ITS PASSENGERS!!! This simple lack of coordination can easily turn an hour commute into a two hour commute. Stop the madness, please!
10
I ride Sound Transit to work everyday, and the 545 is definitely full. All the time. I'm not even the last stop before 520, and I'm lucky to get a seat most days.
I also feel for #1. I take the 522 up to Shoreline from time to time, and it sucks when I miss it by two minutes and have to wait 30 to 40 minutes to get the next one, and I get to stand the whole way there. What was REALLY lame was the night I missed the last 522 on a Friday just before 11, so I took the 72. Unfortunately for me, the last stop was a few miles away from where I needed to go. But I was able to call a friend to come get me, who at that point wasn't too drunk to drive. I think.
Also - the 592 and 594 are running all the damn time, and EVERY time I ride those busses, I'm one of 3 or 4 people all the way down to Tacoma. I really think Sound Transit should be assessing their fleets, too.
I also feel for #1. I take the 522 up to Shoreline from time to time, and it sucks when I miss it by two minutes and have to wait 30 to 40 minutes to get the next one, and I get to stand the whole way there. What was REALLY lame was the night I missed the last 522 on a Friday just before 11, so I took the 72. Unfortunately for me, the last stop was a few miles away from where I needed to go. But I was able to call a friend to come get me, who at that point wasn't too drunk to drive. I think.
Also - the 592 and 594 are running all the damn time, and EVERY time I ride those busses, I'm one of 3 or 4 people all the way down to Tacoma. I really think Sound Transit should be assessing their fleets, too.
11
As someone who's lived in South County -- and often had to commute via public transit to Seattle or the Eastside -- I can tell you the problem isn't that suburban routes run empty. The routes I used most frequently (106, 150, 180, and Sound Transit's 564/565) were almost always full, if not standing-room-only. There are bigger problems with these routes: For one, they don't service the areas of the suburbs where people actually live (such as those awful, ubiquitous cookie-cutter housing developments). For another, with the exception of the 150, they frequently run single-length buses during peak times that clearly demand a double-length. And finally, there's no reliable "express" option -- outside of a couple one-way trips during largely inconvenient "commuter" hours -- from places like Auburn or Kent to downtown Seattle. (Auburn is particularly left in the cold; miss a tunnel bus by five minutes, and the 90 minutes it WOULD have taken you to get down to Kent Station and then wait for the 180 will suddenly balloon to over 2 hours, or more if you're unlucky enough to pick up a wheelchair somewhere on the West Valley Highway.)
I'm fortunate enough now to live near the junction of no fewer than six bus routes in the Central District, which makes getting around much easier. And yes, sometimes it's inconvenient to wait 30 minutes for the bus I really want. But it's MUCH easier to wait 30 minutes in Seattle than it is to wait an hour in the suburbs.
Cutting suburban bus routes isn't the answer. If anything, we need more express buses in the suburbs, and a remapping of existing lines to make sure they actually service areas people need to go. Like, you know, their homes and workplaces.
I'm fortunate enough now to live near the junction of no fewer than six bus routes in the Central District, which makes getting around much easier. And yes, sometimes it's inconvenient to wait 30 minutes for the bus I really want. But it's MUCH easier to wait 30 minutes in Seattle than it is to wait an hour in the suburbs.
Cutting suburban bus routes isn't the answer. If anything, we need more express buses in the suburbs, and a remapping of existing lines to make sure they actually service areas people need to go. Like, you know, their homes and workplaces.
12
"Shifting buses to the West subarea would make the system as a whole cheaper"
okay i'll bite - how does shifting buses from one route to another save money - increase fare revenue probably but cheaper?
okay i'll bite - how does shifting buses from one route to another save money - increase fare revenue probably but cheaper?
13
Buses around the west run every 30-60 minutes. I got lost on the bus trying to get to work one day, and no bus would be coming for 30 minutes.
Seriously, a 30 minute wait cuts down on your passengers when they could just hop in their car without a wait. I know constant service isn't viable, but a bus that only runs every hour or less, is terrible, and tears down your ridership. And, ECB wants that to cut back even more.
In ECB's head its all about what would benefit her, not what would get the most people riding. A more frequent bus route (15 minutes or less on every route), shorter routes (do we really need a stop every 2 blocks?), and more routes would add up to more rider ship, when it becomes comparable to driving. And, this goes for everywhere the bus is, east side, south side, and west side.
Seriously, a 30 minute wait cuts down on your passengers when they could just hop in their car without a wait. I know constant service isn't viable, but a bus that only runs every hour or less, is terrible, and tears down your ridership. And, ECB wants that to cut back even more.
In ECB's head its all about what would benefit her, not what would get the most people riding. A more frequent bus route (15 minutes or less on every route), shorter routes (do we really need a stop every 2 blocks?), and more routes would add up to more rider ship, when it becomes comparable to driving. And, this goes for everywhere the bus is, east side, south side, and west side.
14
The rule was adopted because the vast majority of service was in Seattle, though most of the taxpayers were outside of seattle.
Both are still true, minus the "vast".
Both are still true, minus the "vast".
15
@10/11/etc.
I don't know if everybody realizes that, for many busy Seattle routes, full doesn't mean 'might not get a seat sometimes'. Full means packed like sardines the entire length of the bus, having to crawl over people's legs to get to the door, and sometimes not getting on the bus at all because it's really, seriously, fer real FULL. It's so fucking miserable. Not to mention unsafe. I used to be a happy bus rider. Now I drive whenever I can (and know I'm lucky to have the option). It sucks.
I don't know if everybody realizes that, for many busy Seattle routes, full doesn't mean 'might not get a seat sometimes'. Full means packed like sardines the entire length of the bus, having to crawl over people's legs to get to the door, and sometimes not getting on the bus at all because it's really, seriously, fer real FULL. It's so fucking miserable. Not to mention unsafe. I used to be a happy bus rider. Now I drive whenever I can (and know I'm lucky to have the option). It sucks.
16
#4 That's all fine and dandy, but you want the NYC Subway system. Look it up on Wiki and see how long that took. Now add another 100% time for Seattle politics, and come up with a trillion dollars.
We should start working on that now (which we are) but in the meantime we need dependable buses. Get rid of the trolleys (and the wires with the poles that break off) and replace them with hybrids or flex fuel buses. Get rid of the free area and send the buses where the people who want to ride them, actually ride them.
We should start working on that now (which we are) but in the meantime we need dependable buses. Get rid of the trolleys (and the wires with the poles that break off) and replace them with hybrids or flex fuel buses. Get rid of the free area and send the buses where the people who want to ride them, actually ride them.
17
In my own personal and self-designed opinion, Seattle really needs to be a city/county. Soon.
I've had the same thought for three decades... nice to hear someone else express it.
I've had the same thought for three decades... nice to hear someone else express it.
18
@15, it gets like that on a whole lot of express buses to/from the eastside during rush hour too. And you get the joy of standing for 20 miles instead of 20 minutes, too. I'll take the 15/17/18 over the 545, thanks.
20
@3
In my own personal and self-designed opinion, Seattle really needs to be a city/county. Soon
If we did that we'd immediately have to pay twice as much for bus service, or get service cut in half.
Why would we want that?
In my own personal and self-designed opinion, Seattle really needs to be a city/county. Soon
If we did that we'd immediately have to pay twice as much for bus service, or get service cut in half.
Why would we want that?
21
@15: I agree, full buses suck. But they aren't limited to Seattle. More than once, I had to stand on ridonkulously crowded buses all the way from Kent to Bellevue -- which I'll bet @18 can relate to. If worst comes to worst, at least citydwellers have the option of taking a $10 cab ride. A cab from Kent to Seattle or Kent to Bellevue? $50, plus tip.
22
If they want to put new bus service where it makes sense, route 30 is the place to put it.
Why in the world does that crowded route just stop running after 7 or 8 pm ? It links Seattle Center, Queen Anne, Fremont, Wallingford, and the University District.
We're being asked to pay countless millions to prop up lagging sports team sales at Seattle Center yet we aren't even providing reasonable bus service there.
Why in the world does that crowded route just stop running after 7 or 8 pm ? It links Seattle Center, Queen Anne, Fremont, Wallingford, and the University District.
We're being asked to pay countless millions to prop up lagging sports team sales at Seattle Center yet we aren't even providing reasonable bus service there.
23
Erica--When you post items like this with a single simplistic point of view, you encourage pedantic shit like this from Will in Seattle,
"It's time for Seattle to demand 80 percent of the transit funding goes to Seattle - if the rest of king county wants dollars they need to stop driving and start using transit.
And if they don't like it, we should take over Metro and cut loose the suburbs to run their own service."
You see, Will has trouble grasping that Seattle is only one-third of the county now and about 40% of the tax base. To simply call to overturn 40-40-20 ignores the fact that Seattle doesn't have the votes to overturn the policy. Will also doesn't realize that Seattle already has SIXTY PERCENT of existing Metro service. His Seattle-only Metro would offer less service at a higher cost. Not to mention buying buses, bus bases, training drivers, etc. But who needs facts when you can blow opinions out of your butt?
There are two competing visions for transit that both have merit. One says drive more service to Seattle where is is cost-efficient and heavily used. One says, if you deliver good service to the burbs, folks will ride. Basically, "if you build it, they will come".
Erica is right in pointing out the cost figures, but needs to realize that there are plenty of high-performing routes in East and South King County as well. We should be willing to cut dog routes everywhere and institute better performance criteria for all routes to balance out the 40-40-20 formula We could adjust policies to do that in a rational way. But that wouldn't be as fun as just bashing the burbs, right Erica?
"It's time for Seattle to demand 80 percent of the transit funding goes to Seattle - if the rest of king county wants dollars they need to stop driving and start using transit.
And if they don't like it, we should take over Metro and cut loose the suburbs to run their own service."
You see, Will has trouble grasping that Seattle is only one-third of the county now and about 40% of the tax base. To simply call to overturn 40-40-20 ignores the fact that Seattle doesn't have the votes to overturn the policy. Will also doesn't realize that Seattle already has SIXTY PERCENT of existing Metro service. His Seattle-only Metro would offer less service at a higher cost. Not to mention buying buses, bus bases, training drivers, etc. But who needs facts when you can blow opinions out of your butt?
There are two competing visions for transit that both have merit. One says drive more service to Seattle where is is cost-efficient and heavily used. One says, if you deliver good service to the burbs, folks will ride. Basically, "if you build it, they will come".
Erica is right in pointing out the cost figures, but needs to realize that there are plenty of high-performing routes in East and South King County as well. We should be willing to cut dog routes everywhere and institute better performance criteria for all routes to balance out the 40-40-20 formula We could adjust policies to do that in a rational way. But that wouldn't be as fun as just bashing the burbs, right Erica?
24
OK, so how the hell do we tell Metro to pull its head out of its ass and put the buses where they're needed? Who do I yell at to make this happen?
25
I heard someone from Metro today commenting on the radio that the allocation of new service was actually predetermined by the proposition that had passed and nothing to do with any metro formula... Just sayin
26
The 545 and many other popular suburban routes are Sound Transit, not Metro. Completely different funding. If you include ST, the suburbs get much more than even the 80% of Metro dollars. Yes, the 545 and other buses are packed to the gills, but that bus comes every 10-15 minutes, just got a huge funding boost from Prop 1, and the buses are MUCH nicer. It's ridiculous that downtown to Redmond gets many many times more funding than, say, downtown to Ballard. I hope Metro changes this disparity, FAST!
28
If you Metro riders took a few rides on Sound Transit buses, you'd be pissed. Cushy seats, overhead compartments, individual lights and fans, adjustable backrests and armholders, free WiFi... it's like business class on British Airways compared to Greyhound. The suburbs even tend to get the newer, nicer Metro buses.
29
Those Sound Transit buses are 100% paid for by the suburbs.
Seattle's Sound Transit sub-area (North King) has never spent a penny on express bus service, all of it goes to Light rail.
Seattle's Sound Transit sub-area (North King) has never spent a penny on express bus service, all of it goes to Light rail.
30
andrew,
thank you for your comment. Does your analysis include all the metro security teams sectioned and zoned in and around this area called subarea?
You SOUND like you know alot about metro.
thank you for your comment. Does your analysis include all the metro security teams sectioned and zoned in and around this area called subarea?
You SOUND like you know alot about metro.
31
Well, I started a whole blog devoted to Transit in our area, but I only know a little.
http://seattletransitblog.com
I don't know about metro security, however. it's an interesting question and I'll look into it.
http://seattletransitblog.com
I don't know about metro security, however. it's an interesting question and I'll look into it.
32
@18
And I wouldn't propose that packed commuter routes to/from the Eastside be cut. I'm glad they're there, and glad they're used. But I do think that people who choose to live on the opposite side of the lake from their jobs can take some responsibility for that. Many people using transit within the city have no other option. The idea that they could take a cab if the busses get full (@21) is absurd for most of those people. That might be dinner for a week!
We should not have to be fighting over bus service, for fuck's sake. How ridiculous is this conversation? We should have awesome in-city public transit, and functional regional transit. This is a basic need for an urban area. Aurgh!
And I wouldn't propose that packed commuter routes to/from the Eastside be cut. I'm glad they're there, and glad they're used. But I do think that people who choose to live on the opposite side of the lake from their jobs can take some responsibility for that. Many people using transit within the city have no other option. The idea that they could take a cab if the busses get full (@21) is absurd for most of those people. That might be dinner for a week!
We should not have to be fighting over bus service, for fuck's sake. How ridiculous is this conversation? We should have awesome in-city public transit, and functional regional transit. This is a basic need for an urban area. Aurgh!
33
Everybody wants everything from the transit system, and they want it all right now. Par for the course, naturally.
Erica's article on transit as usual has only the flimsiest of grasps on reality, but I know she's trying. One thing to consider, while it's small comfort for those who are struggling to get where they need to go on the transit system *today*, is that when light rail -finally- comes online, there will be considerable reallocation and reapportioning of bus service throughout the county.
Will this solve all the problems? Assuredly not. Remember, the incentive for light rail in the first place was not to -solve- the problem of getting around in the county, it was to -keep it from getting even worse-!
But it will open up some solutions and maybe relieve some of the stress on the system as well. So everybody just needs to hang on in there, the light at the end of the transit tunnel is getting a little bit closer all the time.
Erica's article on transit as usual has only the flimsiest of grasps on reality, but I know she's trying. One thing to consider, while it's small comfort for those who are struggling to get where they need to go on the transit system *today*, is that when light rail -finally- comes online, there will be considerable reallocation and reapportioning of bus service throughout the county.
Will this solve all the problems? Assuredly not. Remember, the incentive for light rail in the first place was not to -solve- the problem of getting around in the county, it was to -keep it from getting even worse-!
But it will open up some solutions and maybe relieve some of the stress on the system as well. So everybody just needs to hang on in there, the light at the end of the transit tunnel is getting a little bit closer all the time.
34
1.8 million or so people live in King County. 580,000 of them are in Seattle.
Good luck getting the votes for more transit in the future when you shaft the vast majority of the county by making them pay for more buses in Seattle.
Good luck getting the votes for more transit in the future when you shaft the vast majority of the county by making them pay for more buses in Seattle.
35
The difference between Sound Transit and Community Transit versus Metro is that the suburban transits don't have to let bums use them as a toilet all day, so yes, they are much nicer. Even better than Greyhound. It would almost be worth moving to Everett just to be able to ride them each day.
36
@17 is still true - either KC Metro puts 80 percent of the metro bus money into bus lines in Seattle, or we need to form our own county and make the rest of the county realize how much WE subsidize THEM.
Not just in terms of bus service, but parks and legislatively.
No more free ride.
Not just in terms of bus service, but parks and legislatively.
No more free ride.
37
and t_t, as I said, we pay the taxes, you get the service.
I'm just saying no more subsidy for you Red Socialists and your comrades in Bushland.
I'm just saying no more subsidy for you Red Socialists and your comrades in Bushland.
38
Will--you are just flat out wrong. You don't pay the majority of taxes, and you don't have the most people.
And actually, I live in Seattle. Always have. I just don't believe in simple-minded thinking.
What part of 40% of the tax base and 60% of the service don't you understand?
And actually, I live in Seattle. Always have. I just don't believe in simple-minded thinking.
What part of 40% of the tax base and 60% of the service don't you understand?
39
Shifting funds to Seattle would be a bonanza--for Paul Allen. An over-generous proportion, between 15% and 20% of all NEW bus service funding for Seattle has already been committed by the City Council as direct deposit for more subsidy of the Allentown streetcar.
41
Very useful blog Will. Very informative. I have bookmarked it and if it's OK with you I will link it on my blog.
42
I think people are freaking out a little too much here. Getting rid of 40-40-20 doesn't mean breaking down the numbers differently (10-10-80 or (33-33-33) it means rethinking how they allocate money altogether. As in, identifying routes and areas with the most need and putting the money there, regardless of the area.
43
The difference between ST's 545 and other buses, even through ST, is that Microsoft bulk orders a lot of Sound Transit's flex passes for it's employees. That's probably a multi-million revenue stream for ST/Metro. The other buses to the East side don't generate that much money, which in turn doesn't generate the same type of service as the 545.
44
Why the hell doesn't Seattle just take over its own transit serrvice?
Every other city has its own damn bus service... why does Seattle rely on King County? I would understand if there were a single regional bus service (think ST runs all transit everywhere in the ST zone)... but the city bumming off the county?
Even Everett has its own bus service! And it's actually surprisingly good, considering it's Everett.
Every other city has its own damn bus service... why does Seattle rely on King County? I would understand if there were a single regional bus service (think ST runs all transit everywhere in the ST zone)... but the city bumming off the county?
Even Everett has its own bus service! And it's actually surprisingly good, considering it's Everett.
45
hey everyone \\
you elect metro
it's called king county council
your king county council members including those from seattle are the ones who deal with this stuff they have to advocate for better allocation of bus hours
start bugging them they will start bugging the nonseattle ones and horse trading
um if you actually want to change anything that is
you elect metro
it's called king county council
your king county council members including those from seattle are the ones who deal with this stuff they have to advocate for better allocation of bus hours
start bugging them they will start bugging the nonseattle ones and horse trading
um if you actually want to change anything that is
46
In addition to cutting the number of routes, Metro should cut the number of bus stops in half. There should be an average of 1/2 mile between stops, and each stop should be a station, with a decent shelter, and located next to things that people need, like neighborhood retail, high density housing, urban services, etc., not just a pole stuck in the ground seemingly at random. This will do move towards a some very important goals: encouraging appropriate land use patterns (just like light rail does), saving millions on fuel, and creating a faster, simpler, easier to use system.
Yes, people will have to walk a little farther, but 1/4 mile is not very far, even if you're in a wheelchair, or using a walker. While we want to provide for the least privileged, and both Metro and assisted living/senior housing developers would be wise to locate stops adjacent to each other, it would be foolish to structure a system around a select few individuals.
In the long run, this type system promotes greater health through increased walking, reduced traffic congestion through increased average bus speeds, better urban design, helps developers do the right thing, and reduces the conflict between buses and bikes. Oh yeah, and it will save millions of dollars in fuel costs.
Yes, people will have to walk a little farther, but 1/4 mile is not very far, even if you're in a wheelchair, or using a walker. While we want to provide for the least privileged, and both Metro and assisted living/senior housing developers would be wise to locate stops adjacent to each other, it would be foolish to structure a system around a select few individuals.
In the long run, this type system promotes greater health through increased walking, reduced traffic congestion through increased average bus speeds, better urban design, helps developers do the right thing, and reduces the conflict between buses and bikes. Oh yeah, and it will save millions of dollars in fuel costs.
47
What #32 said. This all came about from an Eyman initiative years ago that cut funding for transit. Having to get by with fewer bus dollars has finally caught up to us. This makes it a great time to figure out how to trim some of the fat (40/40/20), but let's not forget the real problem is that we don't pay enough taxes to have a fully functional bus system.
49
I hope when I return to Seattle there will be more 44s from the UW to Ballard. I'd also like a bus that goes from the bottom of Stone Way all the way to 65th. Amd the 67 needs to merge with the 65 at 145th and 15th and run on Sundays.
50
The City of Seattle actually redirects funding to Metro to increase service in the Seattle area.
Does that mean I enjoy crowding on the 41 that is wall to wall bodies like slave ship to downtown? No. While I understand that there are probably crowded routes on the eastside, they probably aren't running every 3-5 minutes packed wall to wall bodies where you breathe in the exhaled air of the 5 people surrounding you. (Do people brush their teeth anymore?) I really despise it and wish I could move closer to the city so I could ride shorter routes or even walk to downtown, but I can't afford it so I ride the 41 and catch everyone's cold and flu. It's fun.
Can the tax payers subsidize some breath mints and flu shots for the riders of the 41?
Does that mean I enjoy crowding on the 41 that is wall to wall bodies like slave ship to downtown? No. While I understand that there are probably crowded routes on the eastside, they probably aren't running every 3-5 minutes packed wall to wall bodies where you breathe in the exhaled air of the 5 people surrounding you. (Do people brush their teeth anymore?) I really despise it and wish I could move closer to the city so I could ride shorter routes or even walk to downtown, but I can't afford it so I ride the 41 and catch everyone's cold and flu. It's fun.
Can the tax payers subsidize some breath mints and flu shots for the riders of the 41?
51
I keep hearing about this 40-40-20 tax base division but what about pass sales and ridership? Why doesn't paying taxes AND paying $65 or more per month for service get me and my Seattle neighborhood to the front of the line? Why do I have to stand in the rain for an extra 30 to 45 minutes while full buses pass me by during rush hour? And how do Metro Park & Ride lots factor in? We don't have Park & Ride in the city - at most, Metro will drop a filthy "shelter" on the street. Suburbs are getting parking lots which cost more for maintenance, security, risk management. How does that factor into their accounting?
52
@32, Violet--I appreciate your position, but I think you're oversimplifying things when you ask people to "take responsibility" for living on the wrong side of the lake. For instance, my job(s) have switched between Seattle and the dreaded eastside 5 times since 2001. It is not reasonable to expect people to keep up with that, especially when (as in my case) 3 out of those 5 switches were due to layoffs and downsizing. It's not easy to move every time you're forced to switch jobs, even if you spend responsibly/live within your means.
And then, of course, there's the general housing-affordability factor. Now, I've never lived in Kent--but I'm guessing that people don't live in Kent or Auburn because they *want* to be in BFE; it's what they can afford, or because that's where their family/daycare/support system or whatever is.
Also, @21 may seem absurd to somebody who has transit services that run past 6:30 p.m. However, I've had to work late on several occasions, where I missed the last bus to my neighborhood or Park&Ride--both when I lived and worked in Seattle as well as when I've had to cross to either side of the lake. I admit to calling a cab at least 6 or 8 times to take me home... the rest of the time I made my bosses drive me home. :)
I'm not saying that we should take service away from anybody. I just think we should understand that although people on both sides of the lake are trying to make the best of what they have, they don't always have all of the ideal options available.
And then, of course, there's the general housing-affordability factor. Now, I've never lived in Kent--but I'm guessing that people don't live in Kent or Auburn because they *want* to be in BFE; it's what they can afford, or because that's where their family/daycare/support system or whatever is.
Also, @21 may seem absurd to somebody who has transit services that run past 6:30 p.m. However, I've had to work late on several occasions, where I missed the last bus to my neighborhood or Park&Ride--both when I lived and worked in Seattle as well as when I've had to cross to either side of the lake. I admit to calling a cab at least 6 or 8 times to take me home... the rest of the time I made my bosses drive me home. :)
I'm not saying that we should take service away from anybody. I just think we should understand that although people on both sides of the lake are trying to make the best of what they have, they don't always have all of the ideal options available.
53
Every other city has its own damn bus service
Actually, they don't. The really effective public transit systems in the U.S. and Canada are run by a single regional body (vs. the six or seven little fiefdoms in and around Seattle). In Vancouver, TransLink is responsible for roads and bridges, while in Portland, their version of Metro not only runs Tri-Met, but is responsible for all regional transportation, PLUS land-use planning. This seems to work quite well, but it makes too much sense to ever happen in Seattle...
Actually, they don't. The really effective public transit systems in the U.S. and Canada are run by a single regional body (vs. the six or seven little fiefdoms in and around Seattle). In Vancouver, TransLink is responsible for roads and bridges, while in Portland, their version of Metro not only runs Tri-Met, but is responsible for all regional transportation, PLUS land-use planning. This seems to work quite well, but it makes too much sense to ever happen in Seattle...
55
Your logic, however, breaks down when it comes to cost. Yes, it would serve more people who use the service, but it would not serve those who pay for it!
If you wanted a fair service (pun intended), you would not have any subsidies at all, since, unlike roads, which everyone including mass transit riders use, buses are not used by a majority of people especially in the exurbs, so why should we pay for them.
If you wanted a fair service (pun intended), you would not have any subsidies at all, since, unlike roads, which everyone including mass transit riders use, buses are not used by a majority of people especially in the exurbs, so why should we pay for them.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (55) RSS