Metro Proposes Cutting 42, Again

And thus the tail wags the dog.

one reason why it’s bad policy to vote for regressive taxes to achieve speed improvements — there are a number of simple steps metro hasn’t taken, won’t take, or the county council lacks the fortitude to take — to achieve service improvements.  here’s how easy take the annual performance survey, cut all routes below a certain ranking of riders per hour, then take those service hours and put them on the highest ranking routes with high latent demand.

So you mean, do exactly what Metro has proposed to do with the June and September 2012 service changes?

You obviously haven’t been paying attention.

perhaps. I will take your word for it.  The question then becomes, (a) why dind’t metro do it earlier?  seems like they’ve failed to do this basic thing for years. 
and (b) why are we waiting until september 2012, which is, let’s see almost a year away when we need service improvement now?  

at many levels we need an avalanche of change, economy, innovation in government.  the notion that it’s acceptable to wait yet another year for this kind of elementary basic management that ought to have been done long ago is supportive of the claim that government is not managed well.

(a) Because the council made it very difficult for them (Metro proposed cutting the 42 when Central Link opened; the council overrode them). Only last year did the council finally adopt a set of guidelines unambiguously stating that Metro service should be allocated primarily based on performance, rather than on arbitrary regional formulas. Even then there are some routes that aren’t very productive but serve large groups of people (low income seniors and disabled) who have no alternative to the bus, and who are served only by one bus route. (Route 42 is so awful precisely because it almost exactly duplicates either Link, the 7, or the 8 AND is extremely unproductive).

(b) This may come as a surprise to all you right-wing blog commenters typing out jeremiads in your mother’s basement, but designing, scheduling and running a bus system is actually really fucking hard. It takes months of work to plan routes that meet all the legal requirement, serve riders as best as possible, within budget, then go hold outreach sessions, go back and plan some more, then make a legislative proposal, get it through the council, then do generate all the thousands of pages of internal and public schedules, line up all the drivers to do it, then roll it out to the public in such a way as Grandma Tillie in Queen Anne who can’t read text smaller than one inch will realize that she has to walk to a different bus stop, and won’t call Larry Phillips on the phone and call him a commie.

So yes, it takes time. If you understood how much work went into this, you’d understand why it takes a long time; but then you wouldn’t be whining anonymously on publicola either, because you’d be a real person with better things to do with your time.

The short answer to a):  because like most every other aspect of Seattle City governance, they pander to minorities (racial and numerical).

ah yes, Blue Light’s old “it’s those damn minorities again!”

the simple ace in his sleeve for any and all political arguments.

Read the article.  Do you have to taste the shit on your shoe before you’ll admit you stepped in it?

jesus bruce take a chill pill.
1. if the council made it difficult, they, metro, which is the council, fucked up and the criticism on that point is valid. 
2. of course there’s a bit of geographical equity involved but to start citing that is dodging the main point.  which is this:  it took a huge fight just to get basic management and efficiency as governing notions.  Wow. 
3. “right wing”?  wtf?  to get a public utility to focus on efficiency isn’t right wing, it’s making government work better to help build the case government should do MORE.  “fucking hard” — oh boo hoo.  It’s not hard to see there are many routes with 25 riders an hour, and others with 90 riders an hour where the bus often leaves hordes of people standing on the side of the road.  don’t be so resistant to legitimate, on the point, sensible criticism.  all this outreach, plan, legislative proposal blah blah blah is just an excuse for not doing basic management.  it does not take time.  it takes time to do it perfectly and run up countless hours for public employees to spend in outreach, outreach contracts, all wasting dollars. 
4. ad hominem attack — wow dude, you’re really better than that.  notice how my basic point is one you agree with?  and if you want to get personal I’ve been “whining” about this exact point for several years so maybe if now they’re changing in a direction you like it’s because of people like me.  but more fundamentally, you’re failing to notice that people who want government to work better to deliver more are your ALLIES and not your enemies.  how do we get people to trust government when folks like you slam people suggesting ways to make it work better that at bottom you actually agree with?

You seem unaware of pretty basic facts about Metro, the Council, and service planning, particularly in your “boo hoo” dismissal of the work that went into these service changes. Moreover, I can assure you that nothing at Metro or the council has changed as a result of anonymous, uncapitalized whining in the comments of Publicola.

reply to the below. 
“You seem unaware” — I am perfectly aware the council runs metro and is to blame as they are responsible.  You seem to think it’s an excuse to plead that “metro has to get the council to agree!” when in fact, it’s one government, and the council is in charge.
As to service planning since you are supporting the basic change I have supported, not sure what I am so unaware of except the fact you are too sensitive to criticism.
“boo hoo dismissal” — I stand by that comment.  Things should not take a decade to change.  Metro was in fact asked to implement these changes earlier as it’s stated in every performance review that that was the point, yet metro didn’t do it.  And I remain of the belief that if you’re going to change stuff, there’s this inevitable cost of confusion and disruption and it’s better to bite the bullet.  You are entirely too defensive of the government here.  We should demand quicker change, not waiting an additional year for a lousy service plan that leaves thousands without a bus on the most heavily used routes. 
uncapitalized whining:  I don’t give a shit about that.  you want capital letters, go work in government where someone can spend an extra 8 hours to make letters capital. 
anonymity:  oh please.  it’s fucking publicola dude 90% are anonymous, and that’s just another way to dodge the basic point which let me remind you again is one where you and I AGREE, that the changes should be made.  I just say “now” while you seem to think that it should take a year.  And come with memos with nice proper capitalization, woo hoo.  Give me a break.  We won ww2 in four years, but it takes a year to change bus routes when the entire agency is making severe cutbacks and hurting riders and the changes would immediately increase the number of riders metro serves, rather dramatically, on the heaviest-demand routes?  you are apologizing for massive inefficiency and waste.  please stop.   

So what are you doing here then Mr. Bruce???

Get prepared for a lot more bus-vs.-rail decisions. Since white people ride the rails and colored folk ride the buses, you can bet the rail will win every time. This is Seattle, and liberals want a smooth ride. You’ll see.

Although the route only serves a handful of people (17 people board daily at the stops serving ACRS, a drop from about 50 per day before light rail opened) and costs about $11.15 per rider, compared to $4.41 per rider systemwide, its defenders are vocal and organized.

Interesting that the brave Publicola didn’t include the cost per rider on light rail. What’s the matter, smugsters? Cat got yer tongue?

No, I am not apologizing for waste and inefficiency. No-one who is aware of what I’ve written on Seattle Transit Blog could suggest that with a straight face. I am explaining to you why it exists, why is is now changing, and why this process takes a long time. You seem unaware of these things, and unwilling to acknowledge them when I have explained them to you.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re legit, someone who’s actually worked to change the system. Maybe I’m just gratuitously being a dick to you. But, until you come out with a real name and exhibit a willingness to learn new things, you’re just another example of the kind of anonymous right-wing troll that makes reading the comments section of Publicola a vexatious waste of time.

Have a nice day.

Tilt at windmills much?

Tilt at windmills much?

Raise the fares. Everyone is in favor of transit consumers having as many options as they are willing to pay for. If you are such a societal leach that you’re unwillingly to even pay for half of the cost of your transportation preference, you’re not particularly entitled to whine about the downsides and marginal inconvenience of your freeloading.

Wouldn’t it make sense from an overall public expenditure point of view to cancel the bus route in question and issue coupons for taxicab rides to the (apparently) very few transit-dependent souls who otherwise need a bus ride to the ACRS?  I expect some legislative authorization at the local or state level may be needed, but I’m trying to think big picture here.

are we calling the Seattle Blogger Corps smugsters now?

Do you really think that anyone knows what the real cost of their transportation is? Are people who will be using the new DBT also “societal leaches” because the toll will only cover a fraction of the cost of the tunnel? What about 520? Should people check Metro’s reports before boarding the bus to insure that they are only riding routes that meet your idea of cost effectiveness? Oh, and please answer this question without using the publicly developed internet. You wouldn’t want to be a freeloader, afterall.

Anyone who rides both light rail and the buses through Rainier Valley can attest to what an utter load of crap that is. Both Link and the Routes 7 and 8 are veritable rolling rainbows of multiculturalism.  And those of us who live in the Valley like it that way.

so where does one stage a counter protest?

I’m guessing Queen Anne’s riders were left out because a bunch of our routes are getting cut and consolidated despite heavy ridership.

I’ve blogged extensively about Queen Anne service, and why it makes sense to consolidate it. In short, while the routes are extremely well used up to Mercer St, and pretty well used on Queen Anne Ave, ridership on the rest of the top of the hill is pretty weak. Also, the legacy configuration of routes 2, 3, 4 and 13 all going to different (mostly little-used) termini costs Metro lots of money. 

Under the Fall 2012 restructure, Queen Anne will consume fewer service hours, but will actually get better and more frequent service on the two routes (13, and 3 extended to SPU) that remain. You are not being shorted; quite the contrary, I think this will be a much better network. You can read all about this at great length:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/10/17/why-current-queen-anne-madrona-service-is-inefficient/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/09/08/why-delete-route-2n/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/08/30/the-bus-network-we-could-have/

Racism-it is every fucking where. Why don’t you just argue that white folk ride the rails because colored folk ride the buses.

Meanwhile, Frequent poster, no liberal he, supports, presumably,  the political party that is making great effort around the country to suppress the vote of the colored people and thus deny them influence with politicians and transit architects and be compelled to ride the buses.

It’s enough to make one change his name to Erica and acquire a bottle of cheap QFC wine.

Good one Frequent Poster. You are clearly a cat fucking genius. President of the Sean Hannity fan club-I’ll bet.

Do people not willing to pay high transit fees really have to be freeloading leeches? Can’t they just be poor? Can’t they just be people working their asses off at crummy jobs for assholes like you and only making minimum wage?

Don’t get sick! Don’t become disabled. Don’t lose your job and health insurance. Then reality_guy you’ll experience some reality.

in Hillman City.

Noting that Metro is not run by “Seattle City governance (sic)” would be too easy. But I just can’t help myself.

To the County Council. Let them know you want to see the 42 go away, that it symbolizes bad route planning and caving to an agency that built a new building with an enormous surface parking lot and clearly thinks a lot more about cars than it does its erstwhile transit-dependent clients. John Niles is right above – if they truly have clients who can’t walk from the 7, 8 or light rail, taxi vouchers or an agency van would be cheaper alternatives. Save Metro hours for where they’ll do the most good.

Dozens on the hill will have to catch two buses to commute to/from the U District thanks to the 30 and 45 being eliminated, lengthening their commute by as much as 30-45 minutes each way. Apparently no one at Metro noticed how packed the 30 and 45 is each morning and afternoon. Your spreadsheets might say it makes sense, but tell that to the dozens who next year will have to wake up 30-60 minutes earlier each morning to get to work.

I’m fortunate to be close enough to Aurora that I can hop a number of buses to connect to the 44. Most of those who use the 30 and 45 aren’t.

II note that, too.  But do you see the little “beat” tab posted with the story?  It says “City”.  See it?

oh, and how do YOU spell governance?

Where else does he get to say “vexatious”?

Who will have to get up 60 minutes earlier to get to the U-District? Yes, Queen Anne riders to the U-District will have to transfer at SPU to the 31 and new 32, which will be running every 15 minutes during the day, just like you will now have the option to make a frequent-service transfer to the 44 at Aurora.
The productive part of the 30 is not being eliminated, just the duplicative part that ran down Westlake. Arguably, connectivity from the top of Queen Anne to the U-District will be better in those times that the 45X does not run, because there will be a frequent-service transfer point at SPU.Finally, the 45X had the highest cost per boarding of any route in Seattle. Maybe the one trip of the day you were on had good ridership, but most did not.

You can verify the actual schedule of the routes, that they will run in an efficient enough manner to not make any difference, and that the on-time rate of these routes will be much, much better than Metro has had lately? Right.