Comments on: 1 West Seattle ‘deletion’ in newest Metro bus-cut plan – with a caveat

By: Ennui29

Ennui29 — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:24:58 +0000

My suggestion is to create a system where a bus always arrives when I want it to, and the very same bus takes me exactly where I want to go. I’m sure if we put our heads together we could figure it out.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:11:20 +0000

It’s a regional mentality amongst various agencies. Their answer is always “more money” but the question is “where has the money gone and why haven’t we received what has been promised in exchange for that “more money”?” And the answer to that question is “more money”. I see a pattern developing here.

By: heather

heather — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:58:13 +0000

Hmmm. When I happened upon one of those metro future transit meetings I ended up speaking with a metro representative about privately operated public transit. From what I understood, a private group can start an organized public transit option as long as it is not exclusive, per city rules. Exclusivity can be eliminated, for example, by everyone having access to a “card”, even though there may be different or no payment tiers – everyone gets the same card. It is legal to service only WS but not “just Admiral” or “just Alki”. Personally, I’d love to see Metro “bus hubs” at the junction, Fauntleroy/AK and the top of the bridge. All other WS transit could be cool trolly loops that intersect with “bus hubs”. ie South WS/Westwood/Ferry/Beach Dr/Alki/…returning via 35th. That way we would have maybe 4-5 “trolly loops” w/ trollies every 15 min. The trollies could be representative of WS, give people quick local access, access to amenities including nature (Lincoln park, Alki, Camp Long, golf course…) and access to Metro. I know the original trolly tracks have been removed here but I’m sure if we put our heads together we could find solutions. It’d be good for tourists too. And just cool, really.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 05:13:14 +0000

I just love when people complain that Metro is run incompetently and wastes tax dollars and/or should just raise fares… BUT it should also continue to run the least productive service into their neighborhood and instead cut the higher-ridership, profit-making routes instead.
.
Bottom line, if you don’t want to pay for services, then you don’t get to receive them. And you can’t continually decrease the relative amount of tax dollars local governments take in while expecting them to serve more people everywhere AND offer more services. That’s not how economics work.

By: White Center Hipster

White Center Hipster — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:03:59 +0000

Thanks for the explanation. Interesting to see that there would not be any new bus service. But with the abysmal “RapidRide” implementation, that is probably a good thing.

One creative way to raise revenue for bus service would be to implement a 5% tax for every latte sold in the county.

By: WSB

WSB — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:43:11 +0000

In reply to White Center Hipster.

To clarify my sometimes bleary-eyed writing – if for example voters approve the November ballot measure and it raises X dollars, it then would be up to the city to talk with the county and work out what it wants those X dollars to go toward. The one thing the ballot-measure money, if approved, could NOT go to Metro for, according to the county reps who talked with us last night, would be creation of new bus service. Clear as mud, I know, I’m sorry, but I promise that we will pursue information before the election that would include for example city leaders’ commitments to what they would want Metro to restore if the money measure is approved. Also, Metro is saying (follow the link to the full announcement from yesterday) that it is open to working out agreements with other local governments who might want to ‘buy back’ service. Seattle already pays for some Metro service, it’s been reported before. – TR

By: White Center Hipster

White Center Hipster — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:25:09 +0000

“But passage of the transit money measure in November wouldn’t guarantee cancellation of these cuts”

To me, that is the most eye opening sentence in the article. It seems the only way that our city and county leaders can attempt to solve issues is by raising taxes.

By: Community Member

Community Member — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:07:32 +0000

Sure, save money by eliminating the least-crowded routes. By why stop there? We can “save” even more money by eliminating police service to low-crime neighborhoods, and limiting fire department and ambulance service to peak hour service. And the school district can be more efficient by only admitting children who live in dense neighborhoods!
.
It’s fine with me if Metro wants to emphasize the big Rapid Ride busses, but they could at least have smaller busses that circulate to carry riders to the Rapid Ride stops.

By: wsn00b

wsn00b — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 20:35:07 +0000

125 seems to be taking the most roundabout way to get to downtown. That route looks like 1+ hour on a good day to get to downtown. As a Gatewood resident I highly doubt I’ll use it.

BTW: Gate wood gurl, nice job on mixing frustrations about new houses (one probably ruined your view or something) and possibly wage inequality with the bus routing. Higher property taxes from those houses are completely welcome to help run various needy city/county features (I am not sure how much goes to Metro).

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 20:32:26 +0000

M,
My post wan’t very clear but I am aware that the 128 doesn’t go downtown. My thought is that the RR C is very frequent but I get your point about keeping service in Gatewood. There certainly aren’t any easy decisions on this subject.

By: M

Wed, 03 Sep 2014 20:09:13 +0000

Chris,

I may be parsing your sentence incorrectly but the 128 doesn’t go downtown. And the only other bus that serves Morgan Junction that goes Downtown all day is RR C.

The restructure is more to keep service in Gatewood (it actually increases from what it has now with the 22) and increase E-W capabilities. Also, the 125 restructure was moved up from September. Still suggested for September is moving the 128 away from Morgan Junction. So if that suggestion goes through, there won’t be duplicative service on Morgan.

By: Gate wood gurl

Gate wood gurl — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:46:57 +0000

Get rid of the #22….. Why not ,the folk buying these black box houses, that are ruining this area , wouldn’t be caught on a BUS!

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:44:44 +0000

I’m somewhat baffled by the 125 route change. Isn’t Morgan Junction currently served by the 128 and other buses headed downtown? This change will cut me out of using the 125, which I do regularly. The walk down to delridge isn’t too bad but I will sure miss the convenience of the 125. It seems like a well-used route to me.

By: heather

heather — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:10:53 +0000

I’m not sure about a fare increase. Not a regular bus rider I had to use the bus to get just N of the UW for a week. It was $5-10 round trip per day (added 2-3 hours commute to my day). I imagine that begins to be cost prohibitive for many.

By: M

Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:58:21 +0000

Anonyme,

Their could be 10000 households in AH but if they aren’t riding the bus, why serve it?

I used to live in AH when the 21 was an all day, 7 day a week, every half-hour bus. And most of the time, at all parts of the day that weren’t rush hour, I was the only one on after 35th and Roxbury.
Did I miss it when it stopped going up there? Absolutely, but it would be insane and terribly selfish to think it was worth it for Metro to keep running up there just for me. Deleting the AH loop made the 21 more efficient which is what everyone keeps claiming they want Metro to do. Apparently, they only want it done to the routes of other people.