I often eat lunch in downtown Kirkland in places where I have a good view of the Kirkland transit center. What I see there — and this is in the middle of the day — is many buses, but few passengers. I nearly always see a few buses that are literally empty, with no passengers at all. The others have very few passengers; in fact I can not recall having seen a bus with so many passengers that they could not have been carried in a large van. And this is at, let me repeat, the transit center, during the middle of the day.
I have been planning a photo essay on these empty buses, but I am not sure whether what I see in Kirkland is typical even of the suburbs, much less the entire area served by the Metro Transit and Sound Transit buses. So, I would be interested in hearing from those who live in other parts of this region. Do you see the same empty buses that I do? Or is your experience different? The more specifics, the better. And if you would rather email me, that would be fine, too.
I haven't watched the buses in Kirkland at rush hours as often as I have at lunch times. But even then I don't see buses that are full or even close to full. I am excluding rush hours from these observations because I am willing to concede, at least for now, that buses at rush hour and special events such as big games make sense. But I am not sure they do at other times.
(My apologies to Joni Balter and David Goldstein for this attempt to bring issues into the campaign for county executive.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 22, 2005 08:11 AM | Email ThisI have also noticed a lot of empty seats in almost every car headed anywhere during commute times. If we could just put two people in every car, instead of one, we wouldn't need to build more roads or transit.
Posted by: Thor on October 22, 2005 08:45 AMAre those observations typically made around lunch time? I ask because in my (very brief) work on transit issues, ridership peaks for the morning and evening commutes and can be a lot lighter at other parts of the day.
Our local bus system in Vancouver, C-TRAN, has done a good job of adopting more efficiences. On their outlying routes, big standard buses on fixed routes have been replaced with smaller vans that run on a flexible schedule based on demand. In the city, they're moving to replace the big buses with smaller buses that are half-sized and get twice the fuel mileage. They also raised fares from below the national average to above that average, so riders are paying more of their fair share. And they have eliminated 14 middle-management positions since 2000. I think they could do a little more in that regard, but they've got a good board of directors who are interested in adopting efficiencies like these, and I am optimistic about the future.
In my view, big inflexible bus systems = bad, but if they can try to be efficient in their operations then the premise of mass transit is a sound one. Of course, in Clark County we have the benefit of having fiscal-conservatives make up the majority of the board and the agency management. That used to not be the case, 10 years ago this same board was full of Democrats who were trying to shove light rail down the throats of an unwilling populace. In fact, the former "Light Rail Manager" for C-TRAN was an employee named Deborah Wallace, now she's State Rep. Deb Wallace-D, and she is still on a mission to force light rail upon us without a public vote. The current board has ZERO interest in light rail, as it strays far from their mission. I've seen the numbers, and while light rail advocates don't think buses are sexy, the fact is they are cheaper to run and more flexible as to who they serve.
Randy
Posted by: Randy Mueller on October 22, 2005 08:50 AMI should add, for those not familiar with Kirkland, that the city has added many downtown condominiums in the last ten years. The people who live in them seem to frequent the galleries and restaurants downtown -- but not the buses.
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 22, 2005 09:25 AMSimply question- will sound transit's light rail stop at the airport or at south center. Answer NO.
That tells the story of how much interest sound transit has in actually easing our transporation problems along I-5.
Simply question- will sound transit's light rail stop at the airport or at south center. Answer NO.
That tells the story of how much interest sound transit has in actually easing our transporation problems along I-5.
Most often I observe those short "taxi" busses (Access?), they hold a dozen or so. Often wonder about the cost efficiency of that division. They run around out here in the suburbs empty, or maybe one child riding home from school. Have NEVER seen more than one person riding. If this is an important service for the county to provide, smaller vehicles would be a MUCH cheaper way to provide the same service. A few of those VanPool drivers are totally whack and dangerous, but doubt this is a widespread characteristic.
Randy...like the practice of smaller busses and vans. From what see, out here on the outer fringes, METRO could utilize this idea more often. A bus, even a small one, is an expensive vehicle to deliver one rider.
Overall I think they have a very good thing going, but would like to see more aggressive cost effectiveness. With this good a transit system, I question the need for light rail.
Interesting subject, let us know your findings.
Posted by: dl on October 22, 2005 09:41 AMOK...is the plural buses or busses? My dictionary lists both.
Posted by: dl on October 22, 2005 09:47 AMYou're just not getting it. Mass Transit is a religion. You're displaying gross intolerance by questioning someone's religious beliefs.
Things like efficiency, effect, logic, utility have no place in a religion, especially those who worship at the temple of the Multi-Person State Run Conveyance.
Convert or get run over.
Posted by: JCM on October 22, 2005 09:56 AMPrivatize the system and make it a money-maker and I guarantee you'll only see empty buses going to democrap events!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 22, 2005 10:15 AMWhen more than $1.467 billion dollars are spent each year in Washington on public transit, and less than 10 percent of that expenditure comes from riders, it shouldn't be surprising that you see a lot of Single Occupant Buses.
The SOB's will continue to waste tax revenue, driving in endless circles offering rides to people who don't want them, so long as the tax revenue is there to be spent by them.
I wonder what useful things could be done with more than a billion dollars a year -- if that money could be torn from the grasp of the public transit agencies and spent elsewhere.
The transit agencies may do worthwhile work in the rush hours, but the rest of their operating days they appear to be engaging in useless work.
Posted by: Micajah on October 22, 2005 11:07 AMWe did not know any old money folks but we did know some well placed Metro folks. They said essentially the same thing; that a monorail would never be built. Period. I remember rigged public comment meetings where monorail alternatives for Sound Transit were never considered. It was so strange to talk with our (then) friends about it. When I tried to get them to say exactly why they, and Metro, were against the idea of a monorail the best I could divine was that a cab driver and not a Metro poobah had come up with the idea.
And the disaster that is the Seattle Monorail Project today is just too sad.
I remember when the Nickel's folks came on board. I also remember questioning the hiring that came after ballot win. A mentor told me that it takes a certain kind of person to get something going and another kind to get it done. He suggested that these "connected" people I didn't trust were necessary precisely because they were "connected."
As I watched from the sidelines I became convinced that Nickels was using the SMP to pay off campaign workers and friends. I'd love to see the connections between the bond dealers/lawyers and the Nickels campaign.
Then when it became apparent that the seawall/viaduct debacle was going to need city money Nickels abandoned the Monorail after effectively sqeezing the last easy buck out of it for his friends and supporters...
Posted by: Gnossos on October 22, 2005 11:19 AMThat said, Mr. Miller proves his true ignorance on the subject (or sheer laziness). You can't just take any bus at any point in time, or any point on it's route, and decide it's representative of the entire system. Makes for a nice bumpersticker-grade political rhetoric, though. For instance, if that bus Jim was watching was at the end of it's route, it will be empty BY DESIGN. At the end of the route, everybody gets off. Same thing goes for the beginning of the route.
I could pull a Jim Miller and take pictures of empty buses on even the most successful bus routes. After I was done, I could declare "we need to stop funding public transit." Unfortunately, the people have already spoken on this matter several times, and the anti-public transit side lost. They lost 60-40 statewide on I-745. All recent polling shows the Kemper-Carlson-Irons-SP plan will get creamed in an even bigger way in King County.
I would also like to point out that buses will always be relatively underutilized in the upper middle class suburbs. The residents of those suburbs (in general) view the bus as something you take if you're poor, or if you lost your license. The political and operating successes of light rail transit throughout the county (including conservative, suburban areas like Sand Diego, Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake City, Denver and Phoenix) are due - in large part - because suburbanites would rather leave their car behind at rush hour for a train than they would a bus. Sure, the train wil cost more, but the investment always proves to be a wise one, and the systems are expanded...time after time, in city after city.
Conservative opponents to light rail (including Irons) like to tout "Bus Rapid Transit" instead, but the reality is nobody want to ride those buses, and very few will give up their cars (thus lessening the growth of congestion) for the bus.
Of course, David Irons supports the "empty buses stuck in traffic" alternative. That's why all you guys are supporting him, right?
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on October 22, 2005 02:06 PMSorry, Mr. Sanchez - you were a sucker for the monorail kool aid back then. It's like an addict in recovery: you should believe very little of the crap they fed you back then. Glad to see you finally saw the light. Too bad it took so long.
Monorail alternatives were considered and evaluated. All you have to do is look here http://www.peopleformoderntransit.org/trainlengths to see why monorail couldn't even come close to matching light rail for a regional application. Airport peoplemover? Fine. But for a regional system that will eventually connect Everett, Seattle, Bellevue/Redmond and Tacoma? No way. Friends of the Monorail even filed suit on the basis of your contention that "no alternatives to light rail were considered." The case was tossed out.
End of story.
Now that you've recovered from your monorail years, how's about sticking to the facts when you debate these issues now?
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on October 22, 2005 02:39 PMYou're not real bright, are you Micajah? Hence the pointless theoretical blog.
Since the repeal of the statewide revenue stream for public transit with 695, localities have successfully passed their own sales tax increases to fund transit. Freeways and roads are paid for by the statewide gas tax.
Only an uninfomed moron would compare locally supported transit systems with a statewide freeways program, and pretend to think we will just shift those locally-passed transit dollars to statewide freeway project. I suppose a liar might do that to try and confuse the public. Which one are you, Micajah? Since you've got your own right wing blog, it's really tough to guess. Toss up.
Now, if you are advocating the reversal of local tax increase votes, I say "go for it." Heck, they even passed a successful ballot measure in Grays Harbor County.
Did I mention that public transit carries nearly 40% of peak travel trips into and out of the Seattle CBD each work day? Imagine if we followed clueless libertarian clowns like Micajah, and stuck all those people in cars.
The city would shut down.
But since anarchy is the ultimate goal of right wing libertarians, maybe that would be viewed as a good thing!
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on October 22, 2005 02:57 PMYour ability to comprehend what you read is roughly equal to your ability to avoid rude behavior -- very low.
Heavy Commuter routes to Seattle and back are packed during and around the commuteer rush hour.
This means you will have empty buses heading in the other direction.
In addition, you will have excess buses during the non peak hours, so it might make sense to use one of the big buses instead of a small van, because the bus has already been paid for.
Further more, for mass transportation to be effective, you have to have good intra-town transportation for the people using the inter-town lines. This might also lead to excess empty buses.
I'm not saying that the Metro is efficent. Just that empty buses aren't sufficent evidence to conclude that it isn't.
Posted by: Cicero on October 22, 2005 03:37 PMSo far WNRAT, you've failed to impress much of anyone but yourself. You criticize another of the supposed egregious sin of posting a "pointless theoretical blog" (or is it "post to a pointless theoretical blog" - your "writing" skills are as myopic as your arguments are vapid), and then, in the same breath, do the same - "Imagine if we followed clueless libertarian clowns like Micajah, and stuck all those people in cars."
Perhaps you should try horse's Patoot - they seem more your style ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 22, 2005 03:59 PMI say take the pictures.
Posted by: Unicorn on October 22, 2005 04:36 PMSecond, a note on usage: My American Heritage dictionary says that either buses or busses is acceptable for the plural. I prefer the first because the second is also the plural for buss. So "buses" always means vehicles, but "busses" can mean either vehicles or kisses.
Third, although I hope that WNRAT will still respond to my question, the point that he (she) makes is an interesting one. It is entirely possible that, for political reasons, we allocate too many resources to suburban areas. If so, then that would be a reason to criticize those who favored such policies.
That fits in with the observations that some buses in Seattle are quite crowded, while no one has mentioned an example of a crowded bus in the suburbs. If this is the pattern, then it would explain some of the differences in support for mass transit that we see in this area. Many in Seattle would think, naturally, that we need more funds for mass transit, because in their experience, the buses are often crowded. Many in the suburbs would have the opposite opinion, because their experience is so different.
And the likelihood that my experiences were not universal is why I posed the question -- as you can see, WNRAT, if you re-read my post. But I fear that my experiences are typical of much, perhaps even most, of the area served by Metro Transit and Sound Transit buses. Which is why I would still like more examples -- from all over.
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 22, 2005 05:05 PMMy typical commute goes like this: Out of the house by 6 AM to catch the Pierce Transit Route 1 from 6th and Sprague to 6th and Commerce. Ridership is medium to heavy. Then I board the Sound Transit 590X or 594X, either of which serves as my express to downtown Seattle. By the time the 590/594 gets done at the Tacoma Dome, it is almost always packed, with hardly an empty seat, and sometimes people standing. Once I am in Seattle, I can either take Metro 12 or Metro 3/4 up from 3rd to First Hill, where I work at Swedish Medical Center. All three routes are almost always standing-room-only at this time.
In the evening, it is reversed, but other than the 590/594, the ridership seems to be somewhat lighter in the morning as opposed to the evening.
I wish I did not have to bus at all, as my commute is usually 2 hours from door to door. But given the impossibly high housing costs in King County, and the rising cost of gas, I have no choice but to live distant and make the daily slog.
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on October 22, 2005 06:20 PMIt was definately something sleezy enough that I would have expected democrats to take part in, but not a Republican that he claims he is. I am very ashamed of the CCGOP on this one.
Posted by: Brent from Clark County on October 22, 2005 08:40 PMI'm generally not a big mass transit fan myself but I have been in the position to be taking busses from Tacoma to Seattle for meetings in the middle of the day over the last couple of weeks and have been pleasantly surprised that the busses for the most part have been appropriately full. Sometimes even almost completely full.
This is the ST bus from Tacoma to Seattle I'm talking about.
So as much as it pains me to admit it, it seems they have scheduled and sized the regional transit busses about right during the daytime hours.
You are not getting to the bottom of the real issues here. First, allocating mass transit to the suburbs is not rewarding us. It is clogging up roads with underused vehicles. Drive behind a bus that keeps pulling over for no one. Aaaargh.
Second, no one has noted that when a bus is filled, it is usually filled with smelly people. Where is the "smelly" angle in all of this?
Posted by: Unicorn on October 22, 2005 09:07 PMBusses to you all.
XXXXOOOOOXXXX
Posted by: Unicorn on October 22, 2005 09:08 PMNota bene: the other buses I see in the UW vicinity are also heavily-traveled, especially at rush hour.
Posted by: Evan on October 23, 2005 12:39 AMI've seen the empty buses, and agree that they would do much better keeping most of them where they are used. The reason funds are allocated by area is that we all pay for this. If we moved all of the buses to Seattle neighborhoods, it may as well be funded by user fees and seattle itself.
Posted by: Grog on October 23, 2005 02:17 AMGrays Harbor Transit (MT-GHT)it is common to see 2 or 3 passengers on a 60 passenger bus doing a 40 mile run one way.
I have seen the same sort of thing all over the state. If memory serves correctly ( a more and more likely erroneous possibility ) for a 50 cent ride the average cost is something like 8 dollars to the taxpayer. PASS I-900 and then audit the buses.
Posted by: Ron A. on October 23, 2005 08:22 AMWhat you're referring to is "farebox recovery", ie the amount of cash collected from the rider as a percentage of the total trip cost. The nationwide average is 20% farebox recovery, or $1 on a $5 trip cost. The rest is, of course, subsidized.
Regarding Brent's comments, they do actually have a small kernel of truth to them. Since I-695 passed C-TRAN lost all of their state funding, millions of dollars per year which equaled about 40% of their prior tax revenue since the agency was created in the early 1980's. After spending down much of their cash reserves for the last five years, they were forced to choose between (a) limiting transit options to the city of Vancouver using existing revenue, or (b) asking for a public vote to increase their % of the sales tax so they could continue to serve the other cities in our county. This tax-increasing ballot measure was endorsed by our County Commissioner Marc Boldt(R), Mr. Tom Mielke (R) who is also running for the county commission, the Clark County Republican PCO's, the Clark County GOP Executive Board, and others. It passed in a landslide of 68% overall, and even rural areas that are historically anti-tax like Battleground, Ridgefield, Yacolt, Camas, and Washougal approved this measure.
The reason I am such a proponent of C-TRAN is that they embody responsible government, something that taxpayers have been wanting for a long time. Going back to that farebox recovery mentioned earlier, by reducing management costs and raising fares and buying smaller buses that get twice the mileage, C-TRAN has been reducing that overall trip cost. The public asked for smaller buses and C-TRAN did it. They were asked to raise fares and make premium commuters to Portland pay their own way (unsubsidized), and C-TRAN did it.
A government agency that tries to cut costs and actually listens to what the public wants...what a concept. :-)
Randy
I personally don't have a problem with their board deciding to keep money in reserve, it sure beats going into debt. How much did the Monorail board want to go into debt to pay for their project? Something like $11 billion on about $2 billion worth of construction? C-TRAN is looking at some potential HUGE expenses coming up, like building a brand-new transit center service hub since they are being evicted from 7th street in downtown Vancouver. The city of Vancouver is redeveloping downtown, and they no longer think all those buses and "bus-people" fit into their planned condominiums-and-Starbucks paradise. With those expenses looming, doesn't it seem wise to keep money in the bank as a "rainy-day fund"? Given the alternative of massive debt which we as taxpayers pay the interest on, I don't mind it at all.
R
Posted by: Randy Mueller on October 23, 2005 10:23 AMMy interest in the transit problem was parochial - limited to Seattle. I had lived in London for a year and worked at three different jobs using the tube exclusively. I lived in Chicago and used the El extensively. I've spent time in the East Bay and enjoyed biking to Bart and then biking to my destination in San Francisco. All these transit systems had the advantage of grade separation. And frequent runs. What that meant was that I could make a schedule and feel relatively assured that I could keep it.
That has not been my experience in Seattle. Let my most recent frustration suffice: I was trying to use Metro to travel from an appt in the North End to one near the Locks. I transferred to the 48 at 15th and 85th. It was late and I was worried I'd miss my connection to the 17 going down 32nd. Luckily, it seemed, there were no passangers waiting to be picked up and we were making good time. Then the driver stopped at the church on 85th and 24th and got off. She went in to the church and while she was there another 48 passed us. By the time she got back and we got to 32nd I'd missed my connection to the 17. I asked her why she'd stopped and why we were late and she said we weren't late. She'd been early and she needed a "restroom break" which she noted she had a union right to take. I asked her why she didn't warn me, I could've gotten off and caught the bus that passed us. She said that bus was late and was the one I should've been on; if I'd wanted it I should have waited for it instead of taking hers....
But back to the "rigged" Sound Transit public comment sessions. This was in '97 if my memory serves. I'm sorry but I've lost/misplaced the bookmark. The meetings in question were in the EastLake area and there were some dissident voices. As I remember either the Weekly or the Stranger did an investigative piece that showed that Sound Transit collected public comments and did nothing with them. The piece also determined that Sound Transit had not considered a monorail alternative for that section of the proposed route even though they maintained that they had studied all options.
Outside one of those meetings I encountered a monorail supporter with some posters and a table full of pamphlets. That started my interest/involvement with the idea of a municipal monorail system.
The concept then was the original X within a loop. Runs would be frequent. Traffic and weather would not be a constraint as there would be the grade separation I'd found in the cities I mentioned above. Smaller, more frequent, feeder buses would serve the main line monorail. I also liked the idea of Seattle paying for it's own transit solution rather than dipping into some federal pork barrel.
As I became more interested and involved in the idea of the monorail friends would invariably say that what we needed were subways like those in NYC and London and Paris. The problem is that that will never happen. For both economic and geological reasons. If we want the ease, reliabilty and safety of grade separated transit in Seattle it will have to be a monorail.
As the density of the city increases this will become more and more apparent. I'm aware that there will be "visual pollution." That's the price we'll have to pay to ensure our city's livability. More roads in the city? Come on! More busses? I just last week tried to conect from Ballard to the Renton highlands. The 17 was stuck in traffic and was late enough to cause me to miss the last 111 even though I'd given myself a 2 bus cushion...
As I said in my earlier post the disaster that is the Seattle Monorail Project today is just too sad.
Posted by: Gnossos on October 23, 2005 11:32 AMC-Tran has taken steps to increase their efficiencies, but not because they want to, because they were forced to. I-695 was the best thing to come to Washington in a long time, and part of the reason I chose to move here from the Portland area. It was about time the people of Washington demand some of their money back from government.
I am absolutely opposed to "rainy-day" funds for government. If you have not noticed, it rains an awful lot here in the Northwest. And going into debt is NOT an answer. It's a convenient choice of words, and because King County does it, does not make it the gospel alternative. If you give government money they will spend it.
It is just absolutely immoral to me to force a family to take a pay cut. I just couldn't do it and sleep at night. Just to give me a warning, what other taxes are on your agenda to increase?
Posted by: Brent from Clark County on October 23, 2005 12:28 PMThe philosophy of totalitarians in control of KC and Seattle think that, if they just make cars more and more expensive, people will eventually hop on those buses. Hasn't worked so far.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on October 23, 2005 03:15 PMJim Miller: thank you for considering all angles on this issue. It's a refreshing approach on this blog. Micajah & alphabet soup: I notice you din't even try to refute anything I wrote, especially that part about deceptively mixing revenue sources (statewide gas tax and locally-passed sales tax increases). What's the matter? Cat got your tongues?
-As I became more interested and involved in the idea of the monorail friends would invariably say that what we needed were subways like those in NYC and London and Paris. The problem is that that will never happen. For both economic and geological reasons. If we want the ease, reliabilty and safety of grade separated transit in Seattle it will have to be a monorail. -
Mr. Sanchez - if you based your entire transportation ideology on a Stranger article, you may want do find a more reputable source. The Stranger had to do a big mea culpa on their moronorail stand, so you might think about doing the same thing. It's sad you are still holding on to the monorail dream, even now that it proved to be a nightmare. I see you also supported a second avenue alignment which would have killed that beast off even earlier if it had been adopted.
Furthermore, a subway light rail line (it's actually 1/3 underground, 1/3 elevated and 1/3 at grade) IS being built as we speak. You've got your facts backwards. There is no way monorail could have ever served the dense neighborhoods of Capitol Hill and the U District, and you're right: buses are insufficient.
Please wake up from your monorail dream, and take a big whiff of reality for once. 100% elevated transit is no magic bullet, and that's why there isn't a single city on the face of the planet following this tortured notion.
Posted by: WeNeed RoadsAndTransit on October 23, 2005 10:54 PMI have mostly taken the express buses to/from Seattle or SEA-TAC airport (and related connections on Pierce Transit), and have usually found them at least at 50% capacity.
Once, the Express bus to Seattle from the Tacoma Dome had to leave folks behind because it was full. (I take this route every couple of weeks, so I have no idea how frequent this is).
I do have a problem with many of the proposed light rail/monorail programs that would do little other than shift bus riders onto another mass transit system; the word for that is cannabalism. Feels good, but doesn't do anything about traffic congestion.
Posted by: RGardner on October 24, 2005 02:47 AMA little while back, the decision was made to allocate more "bus hours" to the suburbs because people demanded access to bus routes in their neighborhoods and what they deemed a more "equitable" distribution of their tax monies.
The trouble with this is that buses are needed in dense urban areas, and not bringing people in and out of sprawling, suburband housing developments.
Consequently, you have relatively empty buses in the 'burbs (outside of rush hours) and overcrowded buses in the cities.
I'm not trying to tirade against suburbs in this instance. The solutions would seem to be either returning to a better allocation of "bus hours" based on demand, or convincing Metro to invest in smaller, non-standard vehicles for more of their routes.
Of course, this might raise all sorts of training and maintenance issues and costs I haven't begun to contemplate, but might at least be worth debating publicly.
Posted by: Mickymse on October 24, 2005 02:56 PMIf Metro cared about customer service, more people might ride. I know there are Mass Transit loving Liberals reading this. Justify that event to me. My eyes require that I ride the bus. However when people ask me about riding the bus instead of driving I tell them to drive. Metro is not worth it.
Hey, I know we need Mass Transit. But, Metro is whats wrong with it.
Posted by: RennDwag on October 25, 2005 01:51 AMIf Metro cared about customer service, more people might ride. I know there are Mass Transit loving Liberals reading this. Justify that event to me. My eyes require that I ride the bus. However when people ask me about riding the bus instead of driving I tell them to drive. Metro is not worth it.
Hey, I know we need Mass Transit. But, Metro is whats wrong with it.
Posted by: RennDwag on October 25, 2005 01:51 AMErinA: even though this is the third time I've had to explain this, I'll do it one more time. You live at the END of Rt. 155 http://transit.metrokc.gov/cftemplates/show_map.cfm?BUS_ROUTE=155&DAY_NAV=WS As such, the bus WILL BE EMPTY. It will naturally have more passengers in the middle of its route, and when it reaches its destination. Why is this so hard to comprehend? People don't take the bus going in the opposite direction they are headed just to take a trip through your neighborhood. And this route serves Southcenter, a major jobs and shopping destination with major traffic congestion.
I know it's fashionable for anti-government conservatives to use this "snapshot approach" and make their conclusions based on bad information, but this is getting ridiculous!
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on October 25, 2005 10:25 AMI have not had a previous comment or concern in this thread other than the one I posted yesterday and this one now. I am not sure why I am being attacked by you. I am a suburban (college educated) mom with two young children who sees these buses everyday. I stated that I believe the bus is turning around to get back to Petrovitsky. I am aware that it is the end of the line for that bus. My concern was of public safety (less speeding in residential neighborhoods) and I never said I was against mass transit. Don't call me names!
Why is the empty bus not obeying the traffic laws? I have never brought this up before yesterday, it was just a conversation I had with my window installer 1 1/2 weeks ago. Jim Miller asked a question and I just gave a response that was clearly related only to my personal experience. You obviously have a reading comprehension problem; I was very clear before. I am a moderate-conservative and I am NOT an anti-government conservative. You don't know me or my politics, so don't pass judgement if you don't know a person.
Posted by: ErinA on October 25, 2005 12:52 PMSo, Erin - you're not against bus transit, you just don't want them in your neighborhood? You think I misinterpreted your earlier post? Well, I'll make sure we're all on the same page:
-My window installer, who lives on Camano Is., also commented to me about this just 1 1/2 weeks ago, after being here all day for 2 days installing windows in the front of our house. He said to me, "That bus's fares aren't even covering the expenses, the fuel, that it is costing the taxpayers to run it!" I said, "Yes, that bus is almost always empty, and those are my tax dollars at work!" He shook his head in obvious disgust.-
Despite the fact that dialogue read like a cheap novel, your window installer should also realize that those evil buses carry tens of millions of riders every year. Get rid of them, and add another hour to his trip from Camano. This morning alone, the trip from Everett went from 40 minutes to 2 hours, thanks to the rain.
If you really wanted to do something about those speeding buses, you would have already called your county councilman.
Please note that those large buses may already be following the speed limit. A bus travelling at 30 mph appears to be going faster than a small car travelling at the same speed, because of their sheer size - especially since the sound of those loud diesel engines are affecting your perception.
But, since those are trained drivers, they sure are a lot safer than the clueless "show off" 16 year old racing around your cul de sacs in his Acura.
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on November 1, 2005 06:35 PMTime after time, I read these inane comments posted by people who are voting for 912 because "the government can't even fill that pothole on my street." Well, that may be true - there may be a pothole - but it's also totally irrelevant to the larger issue of investing in our transportation infrastructure.
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on November 1, 2005 06:45 PM