Dear Bus 2 Riders:
In case you have not seen it, below is the email announcement from Metro about the current status of Routes #2, #4, and #27 for this round of restructuring.Thank you for your help in communicating our collective comcerns to Metro.
We anticipate there will be furthur considerations of changes/modifications at some point in the future. Let us know if you don’t want to be notified by Bus2Riders when we learn Metro is taking up this issue again. We will keep this email active and send out a notification to the list when we hear that there are new issues or opportunities for comment regarding route #2. If you aren’t already on the list and want to you can still email [email protected] to be included on the list.
If you haven’t expressed your concerns to Metro, it wouldn’t hurt to send them in before Feb 29 at [email protected] and/or fill out their questionnairehttp://www.surveymk.com/s/Sept2012TransitRestructuringP2, so Metro has a more complete understanding of riders’ concerns. You can also attend one of the remaining Open Houses to learn more. This is the link to the calendarhttp://metro.kingcounty.gov/have-a-say/calendar.html.
Also it would be appropriate to express your thanks to Metro for listening to the community’s concerns and for removing the changes to the #2 for now.
Thank you again for your participation.
All the Bus 2 Riders and Supporters
Date: February 17, 2012 2:07:34 PM PSTTo: “Obeso, Victor” <[email protected]Subject: Route 2 UpdateThank you for taking the time to participate in our outreach process for the September 2012 service change – your input has been very valuable.We undertake our outreach efforts to develop a better understanding of how the community uses our services, so that the changes we propose balance the needs of riders of a particular route with the needs of current and future riders of our entire system.The proposals Metro presented for feedback were designed to improve the efficiency of our service to serve more people to more places. Talking with you and others helps us understand how existing service is an important part of your lives and neighborhoods. When proposals include long established high ridership routes within a diverse and multifaceted setting, public outreach helps Metro weigh technical considerations with human factors.We have received valuable feedback. We’ve heard that there are factors that deserve further review, analysis and understanding. As a result, Metro has decided to postpone the route 2, 4 and 27 proposals. Issues were raised of coverage and traffic congestion on Madison Street, and more information about the unique travel needs of those that live and work in the area is needed. For now, we are not proposing to change existing routing of this set of routes. Instead, we are proposing to just make small adjustments to the frequency and running hours of routes 4 and 27 consistent with demand.You can expect to see updated web content and materials detailing a recommended proposal in mid-March. You can send us comments by email at [email protected], or phone our message line at 206-263-9768.Sincerely,Manager, Service Development
Those who wished for the #2 to cease being bottom-of-the-barrel transit — slow, late, excruciating — have only been harmed by Metro’s shortsighted decision.
Please contact Metro and tell them that you want them to push harder for GOOD transit, and to please ignore the fearmongers and the naysayers in the future!
It gets me where I want/need to go, and it gets me there when I want/need to be there. I’ve been riding it for 22 years.
Please tell me, what percentage of your trips to you take on the bus, and what percentage do you drive?
Okay, I guess you either haven’t seen the question or don’t intend to respond.
Suffice to say that neither “I never go anywhere other than First Hill, Downtown, or Queen Anne” nor “I drive if I go anywhere else” are not acceptable answers.
This is a city. People should be able to get ANYWHERE in the city without an inordinate amount of time or stress.
If there are places in the city you never go to, or choose to drive to, because the 2 would not respresent an efficient travel option to get to those places, then “it gets me where I want/need to go, and it gets me there when I want/need to be there” is not actually a true statement.
Okay, I guess you either haven’t seen the question or don’t intend to respond.
Suffice to say that neither “I never go anywhere other than First Hill, Downtown, or Queen Anne” nor “I drive if I go anywhere else” are acceptable answers.
This is a city. People should be able to get ANYWHERE in the city without an inordinate amount of time or stress.
If there are places in the city you never go to, or choose to drive to, because the 2 would not respresent an efficient travel option to get to those places, then “it gets me where I want/need to go, and it gets me there when I want/need to be there” is not actually a true statement.
I’ve decided to be the mayor from now on. My first order of business is to get Metro off of our streets – that they have destroyed. Secondly I am firing everybody. The personnel budget will be used for repaving and other infrastructure improvements. City Hall is closed. I don’t need an office and you may not contact me. We will be contracting out police and prison service to Securitas. Courts will continue to be run by the county. Muni court is closed forever. The fire department is now all volunteer and we are selling half of the equipment. You may want contract with a private fire company if you have high risk buildings, but, that’s not my problem. I suggest not smoking in bed and not being obese. The banishment of Metro should help with the latter. The only thing I can’t figure out how to solve is the problem of terribly ugly people. I will listen to your suggestions on that problem only.
I sympathize with your impatience waiting for my reply, but as much as I love the CD News, I do not sit camped in front of the web site all day and evening.
Additionally I am not bound by your parameters of acceptable answers. The discussion has been contrasting the current #2 service to the proposed #2 service, not how to get to anywhere in the city at any time.
I cannot give you a percentage of trips on the bus vs. driving. When I worked downtown, I took the #2 bus twice a day, except when I walked. When I worked in the U District I took the #48 twice a day. When I worked in Bellevue and Fremont I drove. Now I do not have a regular schedule; some weeks I take the bus (usually, but not always, the #2) every day, some weeks hardly at all. I take the #2 to Harvard Market, to downtown, to Seattle Center. And I can tell you that I drive less than 1,500 miles per year.
I sometimes drive when I am going to a series of destinations on one trip. I drive when I am transporting something heavy. I once carried a rented ice axe on the bus – great way to be guaranteed a seat and plenty of space! (this was before Sept. 11, of course), but I choose not to use the bus when I will be hauling a filing cabinet or a ten-ream carton of printer paper.
Long live the #2 in its current robust form!
“I sometimes drive when I am going to a series of destinations on one trip.”
Bingo! Many of your other driving trips wouldn’t be necessary if Seattle transit worked better, but the “SERIES OF DESTINATIONS” problem is the ultimate example.
So why does the current 2 fail in these situations? Long waits, unpredictability, and really lousy connections to anywhere not directly served by it.
When I lived back East, I might have run seven consecutive errands in many different parts of the city, entirely on public transit. I might have been able to do those seven errands in only an hour or two.
In Seattle, stopping by the Central District, followed by a trip to Capitol Hill and errands in the U-District and Greenwood would take you literally all day!
Routes like the current 2 are why that’s the case. How is that “getting where you want/need to go, and or getting there when you want/need to be there”?
Sufferer #2 – that’s the best stated case yet. I hope Metroll is listenning.
Reread what the discussion is about: “The discussion has been contrasting the current #2 service to the proposed #2 service, not how to get to anywhere in the city at any time.”
If you want to keep discussing something else, do it on some other thread. Whoever you are – most of us who know what we’re talking about use our own name.
Why the hostility, Carolyn? I never attacked your character or motives the way you’ve attacked mine.
I was simply arguing from facts: you claimed that the current 2 met all of your needs, then you admitted to many circumstances — including the troublesome “series of destinations” circumstance — for which the 2 clearly fails to offer any help at all.
Here’s another fact: the proposed #2 would have been faster and more reliable at all times of day than the current #2. This was measured and modeled; this is not speculation and is not debatable.
Metro reports that it received a split reaction to the proposed #2 changes — there were as many strong supporters as there were people with reservations about it. Most of the supporters of the change were extremely critical of how the #2 works today:
“I don’t understand why the one mile I spend on the 2 has to take longer than the 8 miles from Northgate,” many have said.
“I can’t believe how unreliable the 2 is. Usually I would have been better off walking. I don’t have an extra 30 minutes to waste every day,” said others.
So, let’s review: It doesn’t work for a lot of people, and it doesn’t even work for you a lot of the time.
So why should it be deemed “just fine,” again?
frequent sufferer, I don’t think you appreciate the #2. I use it to go everywhere,to make connections to the tunnel transportation (light rail, SODO, Union Station, airport), movies and entertainment on CH, QA, downtown, shopping, and transfers at 3rd and Virginia, Town Hall. I use the #48 to get to the U District. I am sorry your vision is so limited and that you are unable to respond to the improvements proposed by the bus2riders and also improvements that the new trolley’s with the floors that can be lowered will make to the system. It is true that Carolyn and I blog so that people basically know who we are, especially those who know the community. You do not. That is simply a fact.
We simmply must demand some fragment of common sense from Metro. Every good idea they come up with is quickly crushed a load minority of publice service abusers. We expect Metro to provide services that we can all use. Not special routes for each person with too much time on thier hands to hang out at Seattle Center every week. Most of us need to go to work or appointments quickly, safely, and cheaply. We don’t want to jerrymander all over town going to some sillyheads favorite dullard hotspots list. Yack. Get me to the station on time.
For the third time: “The discussion has been contrasting the current #2 service to the proposed #2 service, not how to get to anywhere in the city at any time.”
frequent sufferer, I don’t think you appreciate the #2. I use it to go everywhere,to make connections to the tunnel transportation (light rail, SODO, Union Station, airport), movies and entertainment on CH, QA, downtown, shopping, and transfers at 3rd and Virginia, Town Hall. I use the #48 to get to the U District. I am sorry your vision is so limited and that you are unable to respond to the improvements proposed by the bus2riders and also improvements that the new trolley’s with the floors that can be lowered will make to the system. It is true that Carolyn and I blog so that people basically know who we are, especially those who know the community. You do not. That is simply a fact. I see Carolyn is making a great point. The #2 would be bus to nowhere if Metro’s proposal had moved forward.
Carolyn:
For the third time, it is a FACT that the proposed #2 would be SIGNIFICANTLY faster and more reliable than the current one. That is what we call a direct comparison.
Joanna:
I use the 2 all the time, your personal attacks notwithstanding.
The 2 comes late and makes me late, or makes my trips very VERY long, on a regular basis.
Trips that should take 30 minutes can take more than an hour when they involve the 2. If you use the 2 as part of your trips to “everywhere,” then you must not value your time very much.
The improvements you have (belatedly) proposed would be like adding a coat of paint to the Titanic.
Joanna:
I use the 2 all the time, your personal attacks notwithstanding.
The 2 comes late and makes me late, or makes my trips very VERY long, on a regular basis.
Trips that should take 30 minutes can take more than an hour when they involve the 2. If you use the 2 as part of your trips to “everywhere,” then you must not value your time very much.
The “improvements” you have (belatedly) proposed would be like adding a coat of paint to the Titanic…
Your bus lane/island on Spring would help a bit, but you’ve shown no interest in lobbying to city to spend the significant money that would be required to build it. All you really seem to do is shoot down real transit plans, scream about how awesome the 2 is in its current state, and launch personal attacks on those who think otherwise.
Does that about cover your role here?
If it no longer travels where people who have used it for years have gone and still want to go, the “fact” that it would go to other places quickly and reliably is small solace. That’s NOT a direct comparison. Some might call it “bait and switch” – I would not go that far.
The bus that does go where we have gone for years – and want to continue to go to – would be gone. The businesses along that route would suffer. THAT is the direct comparison!
I have a life over and above the #2 bus (it even includes walking) and will now get back to other things that are also important to me.
“The businesses along that route would suffer.”
At absolutely no point was the replacement route more than two blocks from the current route. Precisely which businesses would have been harmed by this.
“I have a life over and above the #2 bus (it even includes walking)…”
And yet you’re freaking out over possibly having to walk two blocks. Oh, the irony!