UPDATE: This is an update to the posting yesterday regarding the meetings, which are again noted below. Metro is showing major proposed changes to many of the routes in our area:
Take a look at the plan comment and take the survey too
UPDATE 2: There are two mroe ways to comment on this to metro. I hope that they are able to collect everything with all the different ways that they are collecting information: You may email metro at:[email protected]
There is a place for comments at: http://metrofutureblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/save-the-dat
I have to admit to not liking the idea of being dumped off at 1st and Madison at the downtown ferry dock, which is a rare destination when I board a #2. Usual destinations are the retail core, Belltown, link light rail, or the theater district in lower Queen Ann. This does not even give a smooth easy transfer to the light rail. Some of the new plans seem interesting and maybe good. Others seem upsetting enough that it will take a bit to for me to look at it and evaluate it as a whole. Everyone should take a look. The transit blog supports all of the changes. However, we should all have our say.
Public meetings – save the date!
Join us for an open house and stick around to share your feedback in a facilitated conversation.
Wednesday, Nov. 2 – Central Library, 1000 Fourth Ave., 12:00-2:00 p.m.
Thursday, Nov. 3 – Adams Elementary School, 6110 28th Ave. NW, 7:00-9:00 p.m.
Monday, Nov. 7 – Catharine Blaine Elementary, 2550 34th Ave. W, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Wednesday, Nov. 9 – Chief Sealth High School, 2600 SW Thistle St., 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Monday, Nov. 14 – Greenwood Senior Center, 525 N 85th St., 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Tuesday, Nov. 15 – South Park Neighborhood Center, 8201 10th Ave. S, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Thursday, Nov. 17 – Madison Middle School, 3429 45th Ave. SW, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
There was talk of an express bus along Madison, all the way between the lake and the ferry terminal. Has that been scratched? These new proposals make my two-mile bus commute 40+ minutes with a half mile walk or a guaranteed transfer. It’s already hard enough to get up and down Madison from Miller Park to the business district. I think the changes are dreadful.
The Seattle Transit Blog doesn’t “supports all of the changes”. Bruce our transit guru does strongly support some of the changes, and I think most of us at the blog strongly support the direction the changes takes but it is way too early to pass judgment. This is only the beginning of a very long process.
AMEN! Trying to get from Madison Valley to 4th and Madison is a circuitous, ridiculous, 45 minute trial!
CORRECTION: The statement about 4th and Madison is a mistake unless you are using the #12. I stand by statements that Madison Valley has great access the retail core currently on the #11 and to Queen Ann on the #8.
Why are you trying to get to 4th and Madison? You have great service to the retail core and access to Queen Ann. Coming back from 4th and Madison is a breeze and you can get there without transferring.
But Metro serves a lot more than just Madison Park/Valley. Some comments read all about the postor being inconvenienced. Transit serves communities and not everyone goes into the downtown. Transit has to serve as many people as possible. With the new strategic plan perhaps Metro will begin a Madison Express, if the demand is there. I can’t imagine it wouldn’t be.
Cutting the 27 off at 12 & Yesler is just unacceptable for me. I guess I’ll just stop using the bus and drive to work every day.
Taking the bus already takes me 40 fricking minutes one way when I could drive in 10 to 15 minutes, and then I don’t have to share my commute with smelly homeless people.
There is no helpful information here — merely a set of other links. Why bother?
Just a note about changes to the 2. There are capacity issues on 3rd ave, so metro is trying to smoothen out traffic there by getting rid of some of the turns. There are tons of buses on 3rd to transfer to, so i don’t think its too inconvenient, and the added reliability will be nice.
As for “awful changes,” metro is shifting service based on actual ridership, so that the routes that actually get used get more service. The 27 will still be there on peak hours.
Elimination of Metro is the best plan. Get the county out of the business and allow open competition for passengers. In Samoa you can go anywhere for $1.00. A really cool looking custom bus comes along every few minutes no matter where you are or intend to go. They are small, fast, and cheap. They pull quickly out of traffic, load quickly, and then get back on the road without forcing other drivers. Metro is a disgusting bloated waste. They destroy our streets suck cash like a big gulp of CocaCola ™. Let’s eliminate Metro today.
I found it useful. I clicked on the link and easily found the breakdown of proposed changes for my bus route. A community member was bring attention to a concern for the neighborhood and the rest of the city. I believe supplying links to the Metro website where all the information is located is a simple and direct (and appropriate) way of getting the information out.
That has not been scratched. It’s still in the early planning stages, and will take years to be developed, if it does indeed happen. Years because it will involve things like building specific raised platform stations with off-board payment, timing light signals so that the bus gets priority, possibly even making a dedicated bus lane. Major changes, which are the only way to achieve high transit speed since the corridor is quite full.
Alas, one step in making this happen in the near future is for Prop 1 to pass, and based on the ratio of campaign signs I’m seeing, I think that’s a long shot.
Samoa has a tiny population. Can you name an example of how this approach has worked in any city in the world that has a large (several million) dense metropolitan population? Many many large cities around the world have far better public transit than Seattle. Virtually all of them are run bu public agencies.
Joanne – there is no direct bus service currently from Madison Valley to 4th and Madison. The 11 and 8 go to Madison Valley, but neither goes to 4th and Madison; the 12 runs along Madison but turns down 19th before Madison Valley. There are many reasons to want to go to the area around 4th and Madison. My personal one is the Library, which is my main downtown destination.
Any change in service has winners and losers. Both should go speak at the meetings! I understand that anyone wanting to go from around Union St to Westlake Center will be a loser. I happen to be a winner with this one – I usually take the 2 to go to the library, which has a small negative impact here (the stop is moved a block away), but a big positive one – having the route start at the ferry dock instead of fighting its way through traffic all the way from Queen Anne means it will be much more reliably close to schedule for the trips home.
Sorry- Joanna, not Joanne. When will I learn to proofread?
We live in Madison Valley and we work in the business core, not the retail core, so getting from home to work is a 40+ minute nightmare. With the viaduct currently closed, we are resorting to walking (as long as the weather holds). This isn’t always viable. With the proposed changes we’ll be forced to transfer or walk at least a half mile each time we take the bus. With fares at $2.50 each way, and $10 daily parking at work, my fiance and I are likely to just start driving. The price is a wash and we’ll save a half hour. What a mess!
Why can’t we all be winners. The #11 could be routed to 4th and 1st and Madison if that is what the ridership finds useful. Why would you say, “I won and you shouldn’t care?”
And, in the meantime, the #2 could maintain its current route at least to downtown. At one time there was some understanding of why some thorough routes were desirable. I find myself just fighting for a direct route to the retail core or to Broadway businesses and buses and to several places along Seneca where I often give presentations, while I also liked the access to lower Queen Ann, Belltown and once in a great while even up the hill on Queen Ann.
I see that if you want a direct route to the main library depending on where you live in Madison Valley, you would have to transfer to the #2 or #12 around 12th and E. Madison or to the #2 on 3rd Avenue downtown. The only other options are to walk up the hill from 3rd or to walk east on 4th from Pike and Pine downtown. Here you recognize the importance and desirability of direct service for you, yet imply that it isn’t important when that disappears for others. The change for the #2 does not provide an advantage for anyone except the ferry riders. If Metro is trying to solve problems for regular ferry and West Seattle Water Taxi commuters the issue should be framed in that matter, not as though they are doing for us in the CD.
The Madison ‘express bus’ is part of Seattle’s Transit Master Plan (TMP) and would be a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. It would *not* go all the way to Madison Park as there is nowhere near sufficient demand for that level of service. At most it would go as far east as 23rd.
As stated, without funding from Prop 1, there’s currently no foreseeable way that service is implemented.
UPDATE 2: There are two mroe ways to comment on this to metro. I hope that they are able to collect everything with all the different ways that they are collecting information:
You may email metro at:[email protected]
There is a place for comments at: http://metrofutureblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/save-the-dat
Ridership on the 27 from Leschi is poor outside of peak hours, hence the plan to cut the service back to where the ridership is (west of 12th) outside of peak.
Metro is responding to two very large forces here: one is the Regional Transit Task Force, which is pushing Metro to use ridership as a metric when determining service levels. The other is the State Legislature. The $20 car tab fee that King County Council passed expires at the end of 2013. For Metro to go back to the Legislature for new revenue, they will have to show they’ve made every effort to reduce service hours where demand does not warrant them.
What Steve said. One could add that Samoa’s regulatory requirements are probably significantly different than Seattle’s. I seriously doubt anyone could offer service at a buck a ride in most of King County and make any kind of profit.
And, ironically, the changes proposed are designed to make the network more efficient and get more value out of existing service hours. Which in the end is what you’re asking for.
> Why would you say, “I won and you shouldn’t care?”
I didn’t say that, and I would never say that. I was just letting it known how the plan would affect me, much as you did. That is why I said that both the winners and losers for this particular plan should go to the meeting and make their position known. Planners can do their best with the data they have available to them to figure out how many winners and losers there will be with plan shifts, and try to make plan shifts that maximize winners and minimize losers (with some other considerations in mind as well, of course). But they can only really know the full impact of the plan if those impacted tell them. But also be prepared to listen with an open mind. My partner is an urban planner, and I know that these kinds of decisions involve accounting for hundreds of details. One simple example is how having the number 2 turn left at 3rd and Spring during rush hour contributes to backups along 3rd for everyone else. That’s a cost of the current 2 routing not borne by either you or me, but many other folks that the planners have to think of as well. In other words, we’re all in this complex urban system together.
Also labor costs are lower. There are many transit systems in the world that are awesome, and cost something that converts to under US$1, but it’s not because they’re private enterprises, it’s because the employees make very small salaries relative to what we’re used to. When you say Samoa, I assume you’re talking about American Samoa (a US territory), not Western Samoa (a separate country). Salaries in the former wouldn’t be as low as in the latter, but they’re still about 1/6th of the salaries in the mainland US ( http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html). So basically the trip seems really cheap to you, but is more comparable to something like $6 for the average Samoan.
I think it’s also important to remember that Metro is dealing with a very busy 3rd Avenue corridor. Splitting the 2 into 2 chunks avoids the time-consuming turn across 3rd headed eastbound *and* takes away a movement that slows down southbound bus traffic on 3rd. It also, as mentioned elsewhere, improves reliability on the 2 by shortening the trip. The primary driver for this proposal is not to get people to the ferry terminal.
Being as you seem to dislike riding the bus so much, it doesn’t seem like not riding it would be much of a hardship to you.
Also, I note that under this proposal, the 27 will continue to run during peak hours, so if you work 9-5, this won’t change the way you ride the bus.
Joanna, it has been explained to you multiple times what the benefit of splitting the 2 is: it will improve reliability on the 2 and every single other bus on 3rd Ave by avoiding the turning movements on 3rd, and allow for a more efficient route pattern with the 2N/13/3 interline.
Every time I write about service on the 2, you recycle the same bogus, debunked arguments against any change. I realize that this bus works well for you under the current system, but there are far more people who will benefit under this change, and you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that. This is not some conspiracy to improve service for ferry riders at the expense of the Central District.
Also, Joanna, you seem to be mixing up people on this thread:
> I see that if you want a direct route to the main library depending on where you live in Madison Valley,
I’m the one who mentioned visiting the library, but I live in the CD, not MV. Del and ALS said they live in MV, and want to go to 4th and Madison for their own reasons. The only reason I mentioned MV was not because I live there, but to respond to your factual incorrect response to Del the MV resident. You said to him: “Coming back from 4th and Madison is a breeze and you can get there without transferring.”
What seems not to be discussed on this thread is the effect that the proposals would have in decreasing the amount of time many people will have to wait for the next bus. E.g.,for whom catching a westbound bus on Madsion west of 12th is a choice. That’s good for them, of course, but there are indirect benefits to other riders to be considered. Maybe enough to compensate for giving up some of the perceived advantages of the current system?
Joanna brings up very important points. I concur with those.
The whole notion of linking the 2/12 to the ferries and ignoring the Bus Tunnel and Westlake stations makes little sense. These route segments are some of the most productive in the Metro system. They also serve regional medical centers, with lots of mobility limited people and lots of people who use the Bus Tunnel.
My hunch: This proposal appears to be prepared by someone that does not live in the Central District. It appears to be done for the selfish intent of a few specific individuals (hint: perhaps certain transit planners?) who happen to live in Kitsap County and want to get up the hill more frequently. It’s about improving their quality of service; not ours.
We have a responsibility to speak up as Central District residents to demand that the 2 and 12 riders can get to more of Downtown than Madison and Marion Streets. It may even take some organized push to communicate this or we’ll get the shaft.
Al, I would say that it’s more about recognizing that one-seat rides (like the current system) are expensive to provide for a limited number of people. Shorter routes are more likely to stay on-time and be more reliable, allowing more service hours from existing revenue (i.e., if you can shave 5 minutes off every trip, and you run 10 trips per hour…you get the idea).
More importantly, it’s saying that yes, transfers are part of how transit works. I’ve been taking Metro for 27 years, and I’m intimately familiar with the frustration of missing a transfer. But asking folks like me who take the 2 most days to transfer downtown in order to help the whole system work better…I think that’s a reasonable request.
Let’s also remember that putting the 2 on Madison removes the adventure of trying to get on to Madison (to get right back off again and on to Union) in the afternoon.
I’m fine with privatized transit if we also have privatized highways. I don’t want highways subsidized without subsidized transit, becasue that means terrible transit.
John: Your comment would have some validity — except WE WON’T EVEN BE ABLE TO EASILY TRANSFER TO THE BUS TUNNEL!
Not are they removing a one-seat ride, but we will have to walk 2 or 3 blocks to even get to a bus tunnel station. It’s more than penalizing us with a transfer, it’s making us walk too!
I cannot verify from personal experience, but, I have heard that a similar system works well in Manilla, a much larger city.
Certainly I am talking about a much different service than Metro offers. Drivers would more likely be owner operators or leasies, like cabies. They would compete for customers and fulfill all significant niches.
Theses systems add color and character to the cities. The service is excellent. Service is provided in at a low price in contries that cannot afford mass transit systems.
As for metro being cheaper – what is the average per trip cost (total cost) for metro? I would bet that the cost is much higher. Metro rider pays $0.75 for a ride. How much does that get subsidized.
And no, let’s not compare that to how much we subsidize cars. That is a seperate argument for another boring day.
My question is – can a bunch of small fleet operators provide better, faster, cheaper, more environmentally sensitive service than Metro? Sure some of them might give you a plywood seet and you pay $1.00 to ride from Madison to First Hill on a Mexican bus. That for one is what I want, assuming we can control the grab ass problem. Somebody else might want to catch a different bus with cushy seats, air conditing and all and pay 3 bucks. The county and city could subsidize and require an all CNG/Electric fleet at a fraction of the cost they currently pay for their own fleet. And do without the concrete crushing behemoths they currently use to grind Seattles streets into the mush that they have become – primarily due to metro 200 ton slugs. (with overly rude agressive drivers – no they don’t have to be and they are).
Forgive me and Herman Cain – but somebody did bring up the the highways versus busses funding comparison. We can ask for better from both. We should not tie busses and cars together and say you show me yours and only then will I show your mine.
Highway and street funding is important and we can improve the econimics there in many ways. I would be very happy to see some streets like Lake Washington Blvd (LKWB)closed to cars except local access only with frequent points where cars have to move up to an arterial in the 20 – 30 something avenue range. Bikes and Walkers only on LKWB. 20th Ave could go that way too. I want the bike path to continue from Holgate/Beacon along I-5 to Tukwilla.
I would love to ride my bike more and take the bus more. I think the Mexican bus program would provide me with better routes and service.
I’m not opposed to transit systems. I’m saying let’s do something cool and affordable and not assume that Metro knows best. They don’t.
I still want a monorail from Ballard to Alki. That would be so awesome. I could take the Mexican bus from 20th to Dearborn and through Pioneer. Then get on the Monorail, enjoy the bay view and ride all the way to Vera’s in Ballard for Breafast and hang with friends. Let’s have cool stuff. Not Metro busses that stink and go nowhere.
Really? They are making us walk three blocks?
What a crime against humanity.
The mexican busses would not make you walk three blocks. They would know what you want and do that – for a dollar.
What good is frequency if you then have to spend more time walking and with further inconveniences? Changes should be done to serve riders. This is not a virtual game. This is a public service for the people. In advocating for proposals the ridership concerns should be addressed not demeaned. The Seneca section of the #2 is never a one seat ride or one person for every two seats. Which one do you mean?
Most bus drivers have no adventure getting the 2 back on E. Union. The transition on to Union is already from Madison. The stop by SU is on Madison.
There are lights and all sorts of obstacles that are time consuming to access the tunnel under this proposal. At the moment there is easy access, walking down the hill on Seneca (may not be a good option for someone on crutches, bad knees, small children or very high heels) or enter on 3rd and Pine (very easy).
I will say that I was mistaken when I said returning from 4th and Madison would be a breeze. I was thinking about the #12 which is a breeze. However, walking to Pike or transferring from the #2 or the #12 would be the only options for Madison Valley from the Central Library. Sorry, about that. Nonetheless, routing the 11 down Madison to the ferries would not mean the #2 has to also be rerouted.
Bruce, I think we probably both recycle our responses to some degree. Here you must be referring to some of my posts on the transit blog. At least we both post in a way that people know who we are. However, from my lens you recycle your same responses at least as often as I do. So the turn at Madison on 3rd is better. Is that what you are saying? I am trying to picture the turn lane there. Maybe. Seneca’s turn could be improved.
When you say more people, I wonder which people. Yes, there a multiple factors here. If you promise not to say reliability and frequency as your main arguments again and address other issues in a little more detail, that would help me have a better conversation. I am trying to address accessibility, convenience, and even safety on a slightly different level, maybe more on the ground. I will reiterate some of these points again.
Mine have been access to everything from the Broadway businesses, transportation, and services, to Virginia Mason, Horizon House, Town Hall, Light Rail, downtown retail core, Belltown, Queen Ann theaters (not direct but pretty good). Along with this are the numerous issues of safety, access, and convenience faced at each transfer point (all different depending on age, number of items or small children carried, and physical well-being.) Time spent transferring and possibility of loosing items even for the most athletic. Direct access to a destination is also still important. I do not believe that the ferries are the main destination for most CD residents.
The #2 and #11 have been presented as duplicate services while any duplication to travel downtown on the #43, #49, 10, and others crossing Broadway were presented as outside the scope of these proposals on the transit blog. I wonder why that would be true.
Many of these changes would provide additional and more convenient services for ferry riders and for those using the West Seattle Water Taxi, but I question if they are for the benefit of most of the CD residents. Better services for the people leaving the ferry and Water Taxi might be one good goal. However, why then say it is for the benefit of the CD resident.
This is where meetings and in-person exchanges may be more productive than email and writing.
Crutches, bad knees, high heels, and small children.
High heels can be avoided so I’m not going to allow that argument. Crutches and bad knees can be a problem, but, if you can’t walk 2 blocks I don’t think we should build a whole system around this minority of people. There are Access busses and cabulances for the severly disabled. Women with small children are the toughest people I know. I’m sure they will get by. Let’s build a system that meets 95% of the need, not go for the lowest possible demominator – people who cannot negotiate two blocks. For the remaining 5% we can and do offer special services. However, I would not rank women with children or heels as special needs. That seems down right discriminatory and disrespectful. Let’s eliminate Metro entirely.
Metro charges $2.50/trip these days, Grumbo. Clearly you haven’t been on a Metro bus in a while.
And the more electric routes we can get (if Prop 1 passes, the southern half of the #48 is on the list) the less diesel exhaust we have to deal with.
I get that the transfer to/from the tunnel won’t be as simple as it is right now, getting off 4th/Seneca and walking half a block and crossing 3rd.
But I have a really, really hard time arguing that, in a system where plenty of people have to walk more than 3 blocks just to get to a bus stop, the planners intentionally arranged this switch just to screw over #2 riders who are transferring to/from the tunnel.
The NB stop at 3rd/Madison will continue to have frequent north-bound trips – in fact, in this plan the #3 (for one example) will run more often. Yes, it means a transfer, or a walk.
Joanna, we are not the only riders Metro serves. Yes the #2 is a relatively busy route; Metro’s data will show you it’s not even in the top 10 system-wide. Metro has to take into account everyone who rides the bus, not just us.
One-seat ride – I mean, as I believe the industry standard use of the term is, that right now you have a one-seat ride (i.e., you do not have to transfer) from Union through downtown to Belltown and on to Uptown (Lower Queen Anne) and then on up the hill. Breaking the 2 into two pieces means you no longer can complete those trips without transferring.
Madison – I mean that if you move the 2 to Madison downtown, as opposed to leaving it on the current routing, you don’t have to sit and wait for the light to turn left to get to the SU stop on Madison. I have watched the 2 sit through multiple light cycles at that light before in the afternoon, because Madison traffic backs up and there is no space for the 2 to turn into when turning left onto Madison.
Again, we’re talking about overall system reliability and on-time performance. Personally, I am ambivalent about the change to Madison and the loss of the one-seat ride through downtown, but if doing so means we get other good things (like less instances of OneBusAway telling me the #2 is 7, 12, 16 minutes late) I’m all for it.
Grumbo, actually I think a number of people get off and walk down that hill to access the light rail. I was just being sensitive to the fact that there is another option at Westlake, if walking down Senaca doesn’t work out. I was not asking for any redesign around that. It isn’t the 2 blocks as much as it is the steepness of the hill there. Did I say women with children. No. I said small children. Although I hope a small child or children would be accompanied by an adult. Westlake is a smoother transition if you have luggage and/or carrying or dealing with more than one small child, or have some other burden or current needs for accessibility. That is all I am saying. The main case for the #2 continuing to Westlake is access to the retail core, a main destination of many.
Hi John, I do consider you to be a reasonable person. Yes, it would be good to note where the #2 ranks. I know that on the bus maps I have seen that it is rated as a high ridership route between 23rd E. Union and 3rd and Pine. It might be 3rd and Stewart, not sure, but it is through the retail core and then on to lower Queen Ann. I also notice Orca Pass records sometimes notes the trip as a #13 even when I board at 23 and E. Union to go downtown. I swipe my card way before it is suppose to be a #13.
No, we aren’t the only riders. I totally get that, but that doesn’t mean we can’t advocate for transportation issues here. I wanted to pay attention to the concerns of the #27 and others too but haven’t had time. I am sure that other areas have been communicating with Metro too. Changes are expensive to tweak and record. Infrastructure must be ensured for all, and new schedules and routes printed accurately. Stops must be changed and created. Public comment plays an important role making sure that precious resources are used wisely and not just for the sake of change.
In fact when I spoke to Metro, the representative said they expect people to first comment on the routes they know best and that it is helpful. Then people will go to the bigger picture.
Although commuters may not be affected by the route 27 cutbacks, I think there is a population located further up Yesler that will feel the pain of this route change. I’m a frequent 27 rider and I see a lot of low income riders and elderly riders that get on and off between 23rd and the Harborview stop throughout the day. Metro should look hard at this and at least continue the bus up to 23rd.
Keep speaking up, Joanna. Let’s tell our friends and neighbors too.
I ride both the 2 bus daily and the 12 bus about once a week.
The 12 is virtually empty below 4th Avenue even though it’s a through route. The 2 is full through Downtown, and about a third to a half of the bus turns over at the 4th Avenue stops near the library. It’s clear this proposal of having a 7.5 minute headway to the ferry is not only invonvenient, but will be more unproductive and costly.
The solution is really quite simple: The 2 buses need to turn before they get to First Avenue, preferably up to the Westlake area. As I see today, there is not enough demand below 3rd Avenue to run every 7.5 minutes anyway and that’s not where the riders want to go.
Leaving the 2 on Seneca is another solution. There are fewer lights with shorter traffic signal red time on Seneca, and that transit priority is relatively easy to implement on a lower volume roadway like Seneca. Madison, on the other hand, is a traffic nightmare. Why not use Seneca for both the 2 and the 12 instead of Madison, and design a nice transit-friendly corridor? That would also address the riders’ issues.
Thanks for the heads up. Looks like 43 and 49 will be deleted – as will the ends of the Queen Anne 2, 3, 4 … are they trying to quietly delete the trolley system?
No no no! In fact new trolley buses are going to be ordered next year!
The 43 and 49 aren’t mentioned in this service change. Nor is the 7 or 36 or 44. Anything not listed is scheduled to stay as is.
I think there’s a very good social justice argument to be made for maintaining the #27 to 23rd rather than 12th. Metro needs to hear from us in the neighborhood on that one. The real ridership drop-off on the #27 off-peak happens after 23rd, I think, although I haven’t seen the on/off numbers for the route.
Joanna, you’re doing exactly what you should be doing. You’re asking questions and questioning assumptions and sharing your experience as a rider. I’m all for it.
I’m just trying to remind all of us that Metro is a larger system, one that is still in serious financial difficulty, and that the agency is doing a hard look at ways to improve efficiency system-wide. When the Legislature gets asked in 2013 (when the $20 car tab fee expires) to provide more $ for Metro, Metro is going to get asked “what have you done with the time we bought you to look at system efficiency?”
It’s entirely possible there are better answers than what’s contained in this scheme. Transit planners are human. But remember the constraints they are dealing with when we propose alternatives.
Al, Metro has the on/off numbers for the 12 and you’ll notice that in this change they’re changing it off 1st (to 2nd) in recognition there isn’t much ridership on the loop it does. They’re breaking the 10/12 connection too.
The point of the change for the #2 is *not* to enhance service to Colman Dock. They need somewhere to turn the bus around if it’s not through-routed to Queen Anne.
JohnS, the traffic patterns of Downtown are going to change substantially once the AWV replacement tunnel is operating. All of the on-ramp and off-ramp traffic to/from the AWV will mostly reduce traffic on many east-west streets in Downtown Seattle. More traffic will shirt to I-5 and less to SR 99. More traffic will be on the north-south Avenues as well, especially First Avenue (which has been a parking lot this week, with the 12 having 10 minute delays to go a few blocks). So, until then, I think it would be prudent for Metro to not implement changes to existing, productive routes until the traffic changes go into effect in 5 or 6 years.
Now that is the kind of feedback you should be giving Metro, Al. Although given toll rates it’s not at all clear to me exactly what will happen with downtown traffic when the tunnel finally opens, but it’s a valid concern.
These discussions are not considerring the real possibility and practicality of cutting Metro down to a much smaller size and better yet eliminating it entirely.
We’re having a discussion as if the only real thing is more of what we already have. Instead, let’s bring about the new mosquito fleet of private, fast, cheap, CNG and electric busses. Run by independents. Painted in crazy colors and going where people want to go – by popular demand. Change happens immediately as passengers choose which carrier to go with.
End the monstrosity of Metro. We are the change.