Suburban Cities May Get Seattle's Bus Service

How do we get out of metro transit?

How do we get out of metro transit?

How do we get out of metro transit?

stop paying bus fares.

just get on.

stop paying bus fares.

just get on.

They do not get all of my money that way, they still get some of it other ways.

Can Seattle secede from Washington. I kinda think we’d be better off on our own. Sorry, Washington. It’s not you, it’s me.

Can Seattle secede from Washington. I kinda think we’d be better off on our own. Sorry, Washington. It’s not you, it’s me.

Can Seattle secede from Washington. I kinda think we’d be better off on our own. Sorry, Washington. It’s not you, it’s me.

Can Seattle secede from Washington. I kinda think we’d be better off on our own. Sorry, Washington. It’s not you, it’s me.

I wonder how (or more likely, when) the recent recommendation to raise fares and eliminate fare discounts will factor into this issue.

I wonder how (or more likely, when) the recent recommendation to raise fares and eliminate fare discounts will factor into this issue.

I wonder how (or more likely, when) the recent recommendation to raise fares and eliminate fare discounts will factor into this issue.

I wonder how (or more likely, when) the recent recommendation to raise fares and eliminate fare discounts will factor into this issue.

Since the 40-40-20 rule went into effect, new Metro routes have been introduced which run between nowhere and nowhere, and which nobody rides. At the same time, some of the inner city routes pack ‘em in like sardines, where buses pass up intending passengers because there’s no more capacity.
I’m not sure that seceding from King County is a practical solution, but making Metro an independent agency like it used to be might be a step in the right direction.

Since the 40-40-20 rule went into effect, new Metro routes have been introduced which run between nowhere and nowhere, and which nobody rides. At the same time, some of the inner city routes pack ‘em in like sardines, where buses pass up intending passengers because there’s no more capacity.
I’m not sure that seceding from King County is a practical solution, but making Metro an independent agency like it used to be might be a step in the right direction.

Since the 40-40-20 rule went into effect, new Metro routes have been introduced which run between nowhere and nowhere, and which nobody rides. At the same time, some of the inner city routes pack ‘em in like sardines, where buses pass up intending passengers because there’s no more capacity.
I’m not sure that seceding from King County is a practical solution, but making Metro an independent agency like it used to be might be a step in the right direction.

Probably a good time to mention that even with 40/40/20, which only applies to new bus service, Seattle is still subsidized by East and South King County in bus service. Doesn’t mean it’s a good policy though.

Probably a good time to mention that even with 40/40/20, which only applies to new bus service, Seattle is still subsidized by East and South King County in bus service. Doesn’t mean it’s a good policy though.

Probably a good time to mention that even with 40/40/20, which only applies to new bus service, Seattle is still subsidized by East and South King County in bus service. Doesn’t mean it’s a good policy though.

Since the 40-40-20 rule went into effect, new Metro routes have been introduced which run between nowhere and nowhere, and which nobody rides. At the same time, some of the inner city routes pack ‘em in like sardines, where buses pass up intending passengers because there’s no more capacity.
I’m not sure that seceding from King County is a practical solution, but making Metro an independent agency like it used to be might be a step in the right direction.

Probably a good time to mention that even with 40/40/20, which only applies to new bus service, Seattle is still subsidized by East and South King County in bus service. Doesn’t mean it’s a good policy though.

But, along the same lines, don’t Seattle residents subsidize roads in south and east King County?

But, along the same lines, don’t Seattle residents subsidize roads in south and east King County?

But, along the same lines, don’t Seattle residents subsidize roads in south and east King County?

But, along the same lines, don’t Seattle residents subsidize roads in south and east King County?

Ira: the marginal new hours tend to be well spent in all three subareas. you should get out more. check out the good loads on routes 150, 164, 166, 168, 169, and 180 at the Kent Transit Center. or the loads on Route 245 in Crossroads or on routes 230 and 253 on NE 8th Street. the suburbs are subsidizing Seattle’s service. the answer has to be raise more funds for all. perhaps it should be raised and spent by subarea.

Ira: the marginal new hours tend to be well spent in all three subareas. you should get out more. check out the good loads on routes 150, 164, 166, 168, 169, and 180 at the Kent Transit Center. or the loads on Route 245 in Crossroads or on routes 230 and 253 on NE 8th Street. the suburbs are subsidizing Seattle’s service. the answer has to be raise more funds for all. perhaps it should be raised and spent by subarea.

Ira: the marginal new hours tend to be well spent in all three subareas. you should get out more. check out the good loads on routes 150, 164, 166, 168, 169, and 180 at the Kent Transit Center. or the loads on Route 245 in Crossroads or on routes 230 and 253 on NE 8th Street. the suburbs are subsidizing Seattle’s service. the answer has to be raise more funds for all. perhaps it should be raised and spent by subarea.

Ira: the marginal new hours tend to be well spent in all three subareas. you should get out more. check out the good loads on routes 150, 164, 166, 168, 169, and 180 at the Kent Transit Center. or the loads on Route 245 in Crossroads or on routes 230 and 253 on NE 8th Street. the suburbs are subsidizing Seattle’s service. the answer has to be raise more funds for all. perhaps it should be raised and spent by subarea.

It all depends on the definitions. STB did a great dueling series on this:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/11/19/subsidy-is-a-loaded-word/

One definition: “Seattle provides 42% of Metro’s revenue, and receives 58% of Metro’s service hours.” Sounds final, right? Well, as Ira points out it turns out a lot of those service hours in Seattle are much fuller (i.e., more passenger service but fewer miles).

It’s also difficult to break some routes down. How about a commuter route into downtown? Who’s subsidizing who on that? Metro’s definition is 50/50 if it crosses zone boundaries.

On roads, pretty much everyone loses, but if you aren’t a heavy interstate user (federal gas tax) you lose the most:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000313.html

It all depends on the definitions. STB did a great dueling series on this:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/11/19/subsidy-is-a-loaded-word/

One definition: “Seattle provides 42% of Metro’s revenue, and receives 58% of Metro’s service hours.” Sounds final, right? Well, as Ira points out it turns out a lot of those service hours in Seattle are much fuller (i.e., more passenger service but fewer miles).

It’s also difficult to break some routes down. How about a commuter route into downtown? Who’s subsidizing who on that? Metro’s definition is 50/50 if it crosses zone boundaries.

On roads, pretty much everyone loses, but if you aren’t a heavy interstate user (federal gas tax) you lose the most:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000313.html

It all depends on the definitions. STB did a great dueling series on this:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/11/19/subsidy-is-a-loaded-word/

One definition: “Seattle provides 42% of Metro’s revenue, and receives 58% of Metro’s service hours.” Sounds final, right? Well, as Ira points out it turns out a lot of those service hours in Seattle are much fuller (i.e., more passenger service but fewer miles).

It’s also difficult to break some routes down. How about a commuter route into downtown? Who’s subsidizing who on that? Metro’s definition is 50/50 if it crosses zone boundaries.

On roads, pretty much everyone loses, but if you aren’t a heavy interstate user (federal gas tax) you lose the most:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000313.html

It all depends on the definitions. STB did a great dueling series on this:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/11/19/subsidy-is-a-loaded-word/

One definition: “Seattle provides 42% of Metro’s revenue, and receives 58% of Metro’s service hours.” Sounds final, right? Well, as Ira points out it turns out a lot of those service hours in Seattle are much fuller (i.e., more passenger service but fewer miles).

It’s also difficult to break some routes down. How about a commuter route into downtown? Who’s subsidizing who on that? Metro’s definition is 50/50 if it crosses zone boundaries.

On roads, pretty much everyone loses, but if you aren’t a heavy interstate user (federal gas tax) you lose the most:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000313.html

Interesting on subarea–that might form a compromise. It’s how SoundTransit already does things. Seattle should be happier than 20/40/40 since per above they provide 42% of revenue, though of course the cuts will hurt however things turn out.

Interesting on subarea–that might form a compromise. It’s how SoundTransit already does things. Seattle should be happier than 20/40/40 since per above they provide 42% of revenue, though of course the cuts will hurt however things turn out.

Interesting on subarea–that might form a compromise. It’s how SoundTransit already does things. Seattle should be happier than 20/40/40 since per above they provide 42% of revenue, though of course the cuts will hurt however things turn out.

Interesting on subarea–that might form a compromise. It’s how SoundTransit already does things. Seattle should be happier than 20/40/40 since per above they provide 42% of revenue, though of course the cuts will hurt however things turn out.

lorax is right. Seattle gets 62% of the service but pays 39% of the taxes. And, Ira, roads in King County are not paid for by Seattle. The county road fund is paid for by taxes on all unincorporated residents. Suburban cities pay for their own roads. King County does however export road dollars to the rest of the state, generously.

That said, we need to stop fighting with each other and simply insist that all of our legislators demand more money for transit. If we had a unified voice we might get somewhere in Olympia.

lorax is right. Seattle gets 62% of the service but pays 39% of the taxes. And, Ira, roads in King County are not paid for by Seattle. The county road fund is paid for by taxes on all unincorporated residents. Suburban cities pay for their own roads. King County does however export road dollars to the rest of the state, generously.

That said, we need to stop fighting with each other and simply insist that all of our legislators demand more money for transit. If we had a unified voice we might get somewhere in Olympia.

lorax is right. Seattle gets 62% of the service but pays 39% of the taxes. And, Ira, roads in King County are not paid for by Seattle. The county road fund is paid for by taxes on all unincorporated residents. Suburban cities pay for their own roads. King County does however export road dollars to the rest of the state, generously.

That said, we need to stop fighting with each other and simply insist that all of our legislators demand more money for transit. If we had a unified voice we might get somewhere in Olympia.

lorax is right. Seattle gets 62% of the service but pays 39% of the taxes. And, Ira, roads in King County are not paid for by Seattle. The county road fund is paid for by taxes on all unincorporated residents. Suburban cities pay for their own roads. King County does however export road dollars to the rest of the state, generously.

That said, we need to stop fighting with each other and simply insist that all of our legislators demand more money for transit. If we had a unified voice we might get somewhere in Olympia.

Maybe the Suburban Councilmembers should come and ride Seattle buses, the 7 is one route I suggest, during rush hour. I was heading Downtown today and rode the 7 part of the way(to Mt. Baker Station to switch to LINK), in the afternoon, and the 7 was packed in both directions. I only took the 7 because I missed the 39.(Would transfer at Columbia City station on that one). Also, I got news for the suburban passengers, Seattle residents use there services too. I got a temp job next week in Kent, most likely I’ll be taking LINK to get to SOUNDER, and a bus from Kent Station to get to the site. I try to fit SOUNDER and LINK into the commute if I can. Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that), LINK won’t work. 7-Night OWL and the 15 work for that. By the way, the former does good on ridership too, and not the stereotypical crowd that some paint the Night Owl into the corner, people actually coming home and going to work ride it, including, Metro Bus Drivers, the few who can take the bus to work if they are on morning peak runs, by the way.

Maybe the Suburban Councilmembers should come and ride Seattle buses, the 7 is one route I suggest, during rush hour. I was heading Downtown today and rode the 7 part of the way(to Mt. Baker Station to switch to LINK), in the afternoon, and the 7 was packed in both directions. I only took the 7 because I missed the 39.(Would transfer at Columbia City station on that one). Also, I got news for the suburban passengers, Seattle residents use there services too. I got a temp job next week in Kent, most likely I’ll be taking LINK to get to SOUNDER, and a bus from Kent Station to get to the site. I try to fit SOUNDER and LINK into the commute if I can. Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that), LINK won’t work. 7-Night OWL and the 15 work for that. By the way, the former does good on ridership too, and not the stereotypical crowd that some paint the Night Owl into the corner, people actually coming home and going to work ride it, including, Metro Bus Drivers, the few who can take the bus to work if they are on morning peak runs, by the way.

Maybe the Suburban Councilmembers should come and ride Seattle buses, the 7 is one route I suggest, during rush hour. I was heading Downtown today and rode the 7 part of the way(to Mt. Baker Station to switch to LINK), in the afternoon, and the 7 was packed in both directions. I only took the 7 because I missed the 39.(Would transfer at Columbia City station on that one). Also, I got news for the suburban passengers, Seattle residents use there services too. I got a temp job next week in Kent, most likely I’ll be taking LINK to get to SOUNDER, and a bus from Kent Station to get to the site. I try to fit SOUNDER and LINK into the commute if I can. Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that), LINK won’t work. 7-Night OWL and the 15 work for that. By the way, the former does good on ridership too, and not the stereotypical crowd that some paint the Night Owl into the corner, people actually coming home and going to work ride it, including, Metro Bus Drivers, the few who can take the bus to work if they are on morning peak runs, by the way.

Maybe the Suburban Councilmembers should come and ride Seattle buses, the 7 is one route I suggest, during rush hour. I was heading Downtown today and rode the 7 part of the way(to Mt. Baker Station to switch to LINK), in the afternoon, and the 7 was packed in both directions. I only took the 7 because I missed the 39.(Would transfer at Columbia City station on that one). Also, I got news for the suburban passengers, Seattle residents use there services too. I got a temp job next week in Kent, most likely I’ll be taking LINK to get to SOUNDER, and a bus from Kent Station to get to the site. I try to fit SOUNDER and LINK into the commute if I can. Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that), LINK won’t work. 7-Night OWL and the 15 work for that. By the way, the former does good on ridership too, and not the stereotypical crowd that some paint the Night Owl into the corner, people actually coming home and going to work ride it, including, Metro Bus Drivers, the few who can take the bus to work if they are on morning peak runs, by the way.

I would like the State to provide some funding for transit, but the voters took that away about 10 years ago, and when the courts said that the Transit MVET(the one that was a portion of the old state MVET) was not struck down by I-695, the legislature fearing an Eyman Initiative closed the loophole.

I would like the State to provide some funding for transit, but the voters took that away about 10 years ago, and when the courts said that the Transit MVET(the one that was a portion of the old state MVET) was not struck down by I-695, the legislature fearing an Eyman Initiative closed the loophole.

I would like the State to provide some funding for transit, but the voters took that away about 10 years ago, and when the courts said that the Transit MVET(the one that was a portion of the old state MVET) was not struck down by I-695, the legislature fearing an Eyman Initiative closed the loophole.

I would like the State to provide some funding for transit, but the voters took that away about 10 years ago, and when the courts said that the Transit MVET(the one that was a portion of the old state MVET) was not struck down by I-695, the legislature fearing an Eyman Initiative closed the loophole.

Ah, here are the other side of the numbers:

http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/11/metro-sub-area-disequity

In Seattle, fares cover more of route costs.

West area fare/expense: 25.7%
East area fare/expense: 14.4%
South area fare/expense: 19.6%

Ah, here are the other side of the numbers:

http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/11/metro-sub-area-disequity

In Seattle, fares cover more of route costs.

West area fare/expense: 25.7%
East area fare/expense: 14.4%
South area fare/expense: 19.6%

Ah, here are the other side of the numbers:

http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/11/metro-sub-area-disequity

In Seattle, fares cover more of route costs.

West area fare/expense: 25.7%
East area fare/expense: 14.4%
South area fare/expense: 19.6%

Ah, here are the other side of the numbers:

http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/11/metro-sub-area-disequity

In Seattle, fares cover more of route costs.

West area fare/expense: 25.7%
East area fare/expense: 14.4%
South area fare/expense: 19.6%

And even with that, joshuadf, the inner city routes have a higher percentage of riders who choose not to pay their fares.
eddiew,
sure, there are some routes, even some routes with newly allocated hours in all of the subareas with pretty good ridership. but how many Seattle only routes with low ridership can you name? I can think of only one, the 99, which has about 75% less riders than the route it replaced, the Waterfront Streetcar.
But on the eastside, there are some wonderful routes that are necessary for some riders, but are mostly pretty empty, including the 232,229,217,921,927, and 952.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with anybody here that no bus service should be cut, but it just seems asinine and counterproductive to cut service where the ridership is heaviest.

And even with that, joshuadf, the inner city routes have a higher percentage of riders who choose not to pay their fares.
eddiew,
sure, there are some routes, even some routes with newly allocated hours in all of the subareas with pretty good ridership. but how many Seattle only routes with low ridership can you name? I can think of only one, the 99, which has about 75% less riders than the route it replaced, the Waterfront Streetcar.
But on the eastside, there are some wonderful routes that are necessary for some riders, but are mostly pretty empty, including the 232,229,217,921,927, and 952.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with anybody here that no bus service should be cut, but it just seems asinine and counterproductive to cut service where the ridership is heaviest.

And even with that, joshuadf, the inner city routes have a higher percentage of riders who choose not to pay their fares.
eddiew,
sure, there are some routes, even some routes with newly allocated hours in all of the subareas with pretty good ridership. but how many Seattle only routes with low ridership can you name? I can think of only one, the 99, which has about 75% less riders than the route it replaced, the Waterfront Streetcar.
But on the eastside, there are some wonderful routes that are necessary for some riders, but are mostly pretty empty, including the 232,229,217,921,927, and 952.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with anybody here that no bus service should be cut, but it just seems asinine and counterproductive to cut service where the ridership is heaviest.

And even with that, joshuadf, the inner city routes have a higher percentage of riders who choose not to pay their fares.
eddiew,
sure, there are some routes, even some routes with newly allocated hours in all of the subareas with pretty good ridership. but how many Seattle only routes with low ridership can you name? I can think of only one, the 99, which has about 75% less riders than the route it replaced, the Waterfront Streetcar.
But on the eastside, there are some wonderful routes that are necessary for some riders, but are mostly pretty empty, including the 232,229,217,921,927, and 952.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with anybody here that no bus service should be cut, but it just seems asinine and counterproductive to cut service where the ridership is heaviest.

I am for trying to contract out some of the services, try it with rural, suburban, and city routes, and see what happens. I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

I am for trying to contract out some of the services, try it with rural, suburban, and city routes, and see what happens. I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

I am for trying to contract out some of the services, try it with rural, suburban, and city routes, and see what happens. I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

I am for trying to contract out some of the services, try it with rural, suburban, and city routes, and see what happens. I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

Seattle can kiss those routes goodbye–it was Julia that was behind the idiotic 40/40/20 rule in the first place. I’m sure she’s very proud of the legions of empty buses running between Des Moines and Black Diamond.

Seattle can kiss those routes goodbye–it was Julia that was behind the idiotic 40/40/20 rule in the first place. I’m sure she’s very proud of the legions of empty buses running between Des Moines and Black Diamond.

Seattle can kiss those routes goodbye–it was Julia that was behind the idiotic 40/40/20 rule in the first place. I’m sure she’s very proud of the legions of empty buses running between Des Moines and Black Diamond.

Seattle can kiss those routes goodbye–it was Julia that was behind the idiotic 40/40/20 rule in the first place. I’m sure she’s very proud of the legions of empty buses running between Des Moines and Black Diamond.

The whole notion of matching dollars to land or dirt is nonsense. We need to match the dollars to the TRANSIT RIDERS.

We should use the money and hours we have to MAXIMIZE the riders and trips — no matter where they are.

Imagine we ad ten car dealers out in Enumclaw producing huge sales tax revenue…why should that sales tax revenue should be spent ANYWHERE near there, when we have people WAITING FOR THE NEXT BUS because all the buses are so full, in other parts of the county?

Are the buses for the RIDERS or are they for the politicians who try to grab the hours for their own districts, regardless of whether or not this hurts the riders?

The whole notion of matching dollars to land or dirt is nonsense. We need to match the dollars to the TRANSIT RIDERS.

We should use the money and hours we have to MAXIMIZE the riders and trips — no matter where they are.

Imagine we ad ten car dealers out in Enumclaw producing huge sales tax revenue…why should that sales tax revenue should be spent ANYWHERE near there, when we have people WAITING FOR THE NEXT BUS because all the buses are so full, in other parts of the county?

Are the buses for the RIDERS or are they for the politicians who try to grab the hours for their own districts, regardless of whether or not this hurts the riders?

The whole notion of matching dollars to land or dirt is nonsense. We need to match the dollars to the TRANSIT RIDERS.

We should use the money and hours we have to MAXIMIZE the riders and trips — no matter where they are.

Imagine we ad ten car dealers out in Enumclaw producing huge sales tax revenue…why should that sales tax revenue should be spent ANYWHERE near there, when we have people WAITING FOR THE NEXT BUS because all the buses are so full, in other parts of the county?

Are the buses for the RIDERS or are they for the politicians who try to grab the hours for their own districts, regardless of whether or not this hurts the riders?

The whole notion of matching dollars to land or dirt is nonsense. We need to match the dollars to the TRANSIT RIDERS.

We should use the money and hours we have to MAXIMIZE the riders and trips — no matter where they are.

Imagine we ad ten car dealers out in Enumclaw producing huge sales tax revenue…why should that sales tax revenue should be spent ANYWHERE near there, when we have people WAITING FOR THE NEXT BUS because all the buses are so full, in other parts of the county?

Are the buses for the RIDERS or are they for the politicians who try to grab the hours for their own districts, regardless of whether or not this hurts the riders?

@18 is right. Julia Patterson pushed the 40/40/20 rule as a part of her ongoing “I hate Seattle” agenda. Look for her to make yet another bad policy decision based on her own insecurities and hate towards the big city.

@18 is right. Julia Patterson pushed the 40/40/20 rule as a part of her ongoing “I hate Seattle” agenda. Look for her to make yet another bad policy decision based on her own insecurities and hate towards the big city.

One other note is that when you add suburban commuter routes, Metro can charge higher two-zone peak fares during peak hours for those routes instead of one-zone fares that they charge in city.

I can see why Metro would like this breakdown in cuts rather than suspensions: They would make more money reallocating the service as two zone suburban routes than by restoring reallocated service to suspended city routes. The demand for service would be there either way, as the suburban areas are somewhat underserviced.

One other note is that when you add suburban commuter routes, Metro can charge higher two-zone peak fares during peak hours for those routes instead of one-zone fares that they charge in city.

I can see why Metro would like this breakdown in cuts rather than suspensions: They would make more money reallocating the service as two zone suburban routes than by restoring reallocated service to suspended city routes. The demand for service would be there either way, as the suburban areas are somewhat underserviced.

@21 Did you just pull all of that straight out of your ass?

@21 Did you just pull all of that straight out of your ass?

Here’s a great video regarding Jane Hague and Metro.

http://tinyurl.com/nhthds

Here’s a great video regarding Jane Hague and Metro.

http://tinyurl.com/nhthds

Here’s a great video regarding Jane Hague and Metro.

http://tinyurl.com/nhthds

@22 forgive @21 he is used to posting at SLOG where pulling it out of one’s ass is the norm.

@22 forgive @21 he is used to posting at SLOG where pulling it out of one’s ass is the norm.

@22 forgive @21 he is used to posting at SLOG where pulling it out of one’s ass is the norm.

@17

I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

But apparently you haven’t heard how well that has worked out for the taxpayers and ridership or you would have told us-right?

@17

I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

But apparently you haven’t heard how well that has worked out for the taxpayers and ridership or you would have told us-right?

@17

I heard Denver contracts about 50% of the RTD’s bus service, and some think they should do it with rail too.

But apparently you haven’t heard how well that has worked out for the taxpayers and ridership or you would have told us-right?

as the suburban areas are somewhat underserviced.

When rural voters see empty busses traveling on isolated routes with increased frequency, I am willing to guess, that they become less supportive and sympathetic to mass transit needs of the urban and suburban areas of the county.

I have a similar reaction to the SLUT, and I freely admitting that I am projecting my experience with wasteful transportation spending on others in the county.

Waiting to be corrected, thanks.

As I posted @1, How do we get out of metro transit?

That is the only leverage we really have. Maybe we should take our eggs out of that transportation basket and align ourselves with the regional interests more directly.

as the suburban areas are somewhat underserviced.

When rural voters see empty busses traveling on isolated routes with increased frequency, I am willing to guess, that they become less supportive and sympathetic to mass transit needs of the urban and suburban areas of the county.

I have a similar reaction to the SLUT, and I freely admitting that I am projecting my experience with wasteful transportation spending on others in the county.

Waiting to be corrected, thanks.

As I posted @1, How do we get out of metro transit?

That is the only leverage we really have. Maybe we should take our eggs out of that transportation basket and align ourselves with the regional interests more directly.

as the suburban areas are somewhat underserviced.

When rural voters see empty busses traveling on isolated routes with increased frequency, I am willing to guess, that they become less supportive and sympathetic to mass transit needs of the urban and suburban areas of the county.

I have a similar reaction to the SLUT, and I freely admitting that I am projecting my experience with wasteful transportation spending on others in the county.

Waiting to be corrected, thanks.

As I posted @1, How do we get out of metro transit?

That is the only leverage we really have. Maybe we should take our eggs out of that transportation basket and align ourselves with the regional interests more directly.

@13

Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that),

I will-it’s Trident Seafoods.

@13

Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that),

I will-it’s Trident Seafoods.

@13

Obviously the job where I have to be in Ballard at 5AM(Fish Processing company, will not give out any clues other than that),

I will-it’s Trident Seafoods.

We don’t have the power to leave Metro. Metro sales taxes are collected whether or not a city or its residents try to “leave” Metro. The city has no legal power to vote to take that same sales tax revenue stream away from Metro.

So unless you get the state leg to change all this, you have to work thru a majority of county councilmembers to change anything about Metro.

We don’t have the power to leave Metro. Metro sales taxes are collected whether or not a city or its residents try to “leave” Metro. The city has no legal power to vote to take that same sales tax revenue stream away from Metro.

So unless you get the state leg to change all this, you have to work thru a majority of county councilmembers to change anything about Metro.

We don’t have the power to leave Metro. Metro sales taxes are collected whether or not a city or its residents try to “leave” Metro. The city has no legal power to vote to take that same sales tax revenue stream away from Metro.

So unless you get the state leg to change all this, you have to work thru a majority of county councilmembers to change anything about Metro.

Around 1993, the old Metro council was ruled illegal, because it’s members were appointed by virtue of their holding other elected offices. Instead of changing the structure and having a directly elected Metro council, the voters elected to have a “merger” with King County.
Prior to the merger, the Metro Council was famous for being a group that put politics aside, because they weren’t directly elected to their positions. It was an unwieldy group, and they too often followed the recommendations of staff, but compared to what we’ve got now, they were perfect.

Around 1993, the old Metro council was ruled illegal, because it’s members were appointed by virtue of their holding other elected offices. Instead of changing the structure and having a directly elected Metro council, the voters elected to have a “merger” with King County.
Prior to the merger, the Metro Council was famous for being a group that put politics aside, because they weren’t directly elected to their positions. It was an unwieldy group, and they too often followed the recommendations of staff, but compared to what we’ve got now, they were perfect.

Around 1993, the old Metro council was ruled illegal, because it’s members were appointed by virtue of their holding other elected offices. Instead of changing the structure and having a directly elected Metro council, the voters elected to have a “merger” with King County.
Prior to the merger, the Metro Council was famous for being a group that put politics aside, because they weren’t directly elected to their positions. It was an unwieldy group, and they too often followed the recommendations of staff, but compared to what we’ve got now, they were perfect.

Okay, test. My last comment got eaten and WordPress won’t let me repost it.

Okay, test. My last comment got eaten and WordPress won’t let me repost it.

Okay, test. My last comment got eaten and WordPress won’t let me repost it.

OKAY, I’ll restate and try this again.

Since some still jump to this conclusion, I’ll also restate that just because I explain a point of view or idea that’s motivating a proposed policy (as I did in 21) doesn’t mean I support said POV. If I do, I’ll clearly state that I support it.

Like many of you, I don’t support the opposition to the suspension proposal. I also don’t believe that suburban service will get as much ridership (and collect as much in fares) as routes in Seattle will. While it’s possible suburban routes would require less service and thus net a higher return relative to the cost of buses and personnel, I also don’t think it would be as profitable to Metro as suburban interests think it would be.

And glad to see the Fnarf sock puppet at 24 is my biggest fan <3

OKAY, I’ll restate and try this again.

Since some still jump to this conclusion, I’ll also restate that just because I explain a point of view or idea that’s motivating a proposed policy (as I did in 21) doesn’t mean I support said POV. If I do, I’ll clearly state that I support it.

Like many of you, I don’t support the opposition to the suspension proposal. I also don’t believe that suburban service will get as much ridership (and collect as much in fares) as routes in Seattle will. While it’s possible suburban routes would require less service and thus net a higher return relative to the cost of buses and personnel, I also don’t think it would be as profitable to Metro as suburban interests think it would be.

And glad to see the Fnarf sock puppet at 24 is my biggest fan <3

OKAY, I’ll restate and try this again.

Since some still jump to this conclusion, I’ll also restate that just because I explain a point of view or idea that’s motivating a proposed policy (as I did in 21) doesn’t mean I support said POV. If I do, I’ll clearly state that I support it.

Like many of you, I don’t support the opposition to the suspension proposal. I also don’t believe that suburban service will get as much ridership (and collect as much in fares) as routes in Seattle will. While it’s possible suburban routes would require less service and thus net a higher return relative to the cost of buses and personnel, I also don’t think it would be as profitable to Metro as suburban interests think it would be.

And glad to see the Fnarf sock puppet at 24 is my biggest fan <3

@31 Faaarrrrrtffffff is a sockpuppet for Fnarf? I guess-sorta-like Don is a sockpuppet for Dan.

In #31 you seem to be arguing the opposite of what you wrote in #21

But I could be wrong. You don’t express yourself very clearly. Good nuff for SLOG though. the 14 year old demographic isn’t all that picky.

@31 Faaarrrrrtffffff is a sockpuppet for Fnarf? I guess-sorta-like Don is a sockpuppet for Dan.

In #31 you seem to be arguing the opposite of what you wrote in #21

But I could be wrong. You don’t express yourself very clearly. Good nuff for SLOG though. the 14 year old demographic isn’t all that picky.

@31 Faaarrrrrtffffff is a sockpuppet for Fnarf? I guess-sorta-like Don is a sockpuppet for Dan.

In #31 you seem to be arguing the opposite of what you wrote in #21

But I could be wrong. You don’t express yourself very clearly. Good nuff for SLOG though. the 14 year old demographic isn’t all that picky.

To clear this up for the peanut gallery Fa(aarrrr)rtf(fffff) was posting as Fnarf until the writers wised up and wiped his fake comments, so now he’s posting as Fartff or Faarrrrrtffffff or whatever he can get away with posting. But yeah, whether he’s really just some anon or actually AJ or Non or one of my other devoted fans… welcome! … I think. And learn how to read without jumping to conclusions.

To clear this up for the peanut gallery Fa(aarrrr)rtf(fffff) was posting as Fnarf until the writers wised up and wiped his fake comments, so now he’s posting as Fartff or Faarrrrrtffffff or whatever he can get away with posting. But yeah, whether he’s really just some anon or actually AJ or Non or one of my other devoted fans… welcome! … I think. And learn how to read without jumping to conclusions.

To clear this up for the peanut gallery Fa(aarrrr)rtf(fffff) was posting as Fnarf until the writers wised up and wiped his fake comments, so now he’s posting as Fartff or Faarrrrrtffffff or whatever he can get away with posting. But yeah, whether he’s really just some anon or actually AJ or Non or one of my other devoted fans… welcome! … I think. And learn how to read without jumping to conclusions.

@33 How do you know that this Faaarrrrrtffffff is the same person who was posting as fnarf?

From reading his/her comment above I doubt that he/she is one of your fans.

@33 How do you know that this Faaarrrrrtffffff is the same person who was posting as fnarf?

From reading his/her comment above I doubt that he/she is one of your fans.

@33 How do you know that this Faaarrrrrtffffff is the same person who was posting as fnarf?

From reading his/her comment above I doubt that he/she is one of your fans.

Well… here is my 2 pennies. I personally believe everyone pays their fair share whether they are urban or suburban. I’ve lived both in the city and in the ‘burbs.

First, I can say that Seattle does need something more to get people moved around the city more easily, either more buses or street cars or light rail or subway or monorail, etc. I have a little bit of a beef. There are tracks laid down for street cars, but the private company that ran it is now gone. I’m disappointed to ride past those tracks everyday and not see it put to good use. What a waste.

Second, the suburban routes need to be maintained. Anyone that has tried to get into Seattle has issues with the either the lack of scheduled routes from areas they live, or the lack of sufficient number of buses. It’s important to maintain these routes since low and middle income people cannot afford housing in the city. The majority of the city’s labor and administrative personnel make well below the median income and cannot afford to even rent a place in the city. Hence, they live in areas like Renton, Kent, Lynnwood, etc.

Finally, the suburbs do pay their fair share. RTA is expansive and taxes areas that only have limited service or service that is not useful to the individual. I think the council has been thoughtful and fair. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s worlds better than some other cities.

Well… here is my 2 pennies. I personally believe everyone pays their fair share whether they are urban or suburban. I’ve lived both in the city and in the ‘burbs.

First, I can say that Seattle does need something more to get people moved around the city more easily, either more buses or street cars or light rail or subway or monorail, etc. I have a little bit of a beef. There are tracks laid down for street cars, but the private company that ran it is now gone. I’m disappointed to ride past those tracks everyday and not see it put to good use. What a waste.

Second, the suburban routes need to be maintained. Anyone that has tried to get into Seattle has issues with the either the lack of scheduled routes from areas they live, or the lack of sufficient number of buses. It’s important to maintain these routes since low and middle income people cannot afford housing in the city. The majority of the city’s labor and administrative personnel make well below the median income and cannot afford to even rent a place in the city. Hence, they live in areas like Renton, Kent, Lynnwood, etc.

Finally, the suburbs do pay their fair share. RTA is expansive and taxes areas that only have limited service or service that is not useful to the individual. I think the council has been thoughtful and fair. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s worlds better than some other cities.

34. WHOOSH, and WHOOSH… if this isn’t in fact the same exact person.

34. WHOOSH, and WHOOSH… if this isn’t in fact the same exact person.

34. WHOOSH, and WHOOSH… if this isn’t in fact the same exact person.

They do not get all of my money that way, they still get some of it other ways.