Wait what?

When I originally read about the 40-40-20 formula in this paper, the whole point of the post/article was to explain how stupid it is and how it leads to totally lopsided bus coverage.

Now you want to extend its use to funding just because you're feeling vindictive towards the east side idiots?

I hope this state doesn't wonder why nothing gets accomplished if this is how an above-average intelligence Seattle resident reacts to this vote.

time to rescind the 40-40-20 rule and establish Seattle at it's own County. or State.

Then the suburbs can suddenly realize how much we subsidize them.

The people who live on the Eastside who aren't dickbags, minority though they may be, still deserve transit. This is the same problem with resolving any political issue by taking actions against an entire people or region: you harm the innocent bystanders more than the people you're targeting.

Besides, you're conveniently ignoring a cornerstone of Washington State Republicanism: "Above all else, fuck Seattle."

@1: I think the idea is that if increases are distributed by 40-40-20, decreases should be too. Otherwise volatility up and down creates distortions. Let's say you starting with $100 total, and distribute a 10% 40-40-20. That gets you to 44-44-22. Then an 9% decrease distributed 20-20-60 gets you to 42-42-16, making the imbalance worse than it was at the same funding level. (numbers exaggerated to show the problem)

If that's the way those eastside assholes want to play it, then 100% of the cuts should be from the areas they "represent". That is how they play the game everytime - hostage taking. Give the fucking cheapskate, WATB motherfuckers a taste of their own motherfucking medicine for fuck sakes.
You can't win a fight you won't show up for - and this is a fight. They have no intention of negotiating. Republicans are nothing more than petulant spoiled children demanding more candy. Spank them and send them to the corner till they learn to shut the fuck up.

Well, if Seattle wasn't hogging all the money with its $179 million per mile light rail boondoggle, the one that is getting 1/3rd of the projected ridership, we wouldn't be having these problems.

Seattle's light rail is the most expensive in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#…

Other big cities such as San Diego have done light rail for $10 to 20 million per mile -- one-tenth to one-twentieth of the cost!!

I really want to bring out a tiny violin and cry about all these services being cut, but the culprits are the density and transit crowd who bankrupted the system in the first place.

So it comes up to a vote, why is that a bad thing.

Sinces the 40-40-20 is just some forumla, not really a rule, its not expected to be used if cuts are made.

@6: From the article you linked:

"Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the U.S. at $179 million per mile, since it includes extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55 m) below ground level. These result in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail."

So we call it a subway, OK?

@3 tell them to pay for it then.

#8

It's a subway only because the designers of the route chose to make it so. There are plenty of ground level corridors that they could have used instead which run along highway routes. They could have put in more park and ride stations like the customers have been demanding and used trolley buses as feeders.

But they chose the most expensive way to build it out of a combination of social engineering and misguided stupidity.

No sympathy.

Just like with the tunnel.

No sympathy...

"Announced"? Nope. PubliCola called and asked her: http://publicola.com/2011/04/22/gop-kc-c…

@10 we're not flat like San Diego.

Heck, compared to Vancouver BC or Portland OR we're way hilly.

A more useful comparison would be QTY_GOP_WHINERS ratio to QTY_GOP_CITIZENS divided by QTY_TOT_CITIZENS.

We'll call it the Teabagger Ratio.

Let's hope she gets a reasonable opponent this year. She should've been out after that whole dui/uppity richer fiasco.

Please don't screw the poor who cannot afford to live in your fair city any more than they already are being screwed. The assholes who vote against this are assholes who drive. They don't give a shit about bus service. I have already nearly lost my job because of Metro's unreliability, and can't afford a car either. I suppose I could return to retail hell and try to get a job at the local strip mall that's within walking distance, though it's along a highway and has no sidewalks. Oh, but no one's hiring.

I write my asshole representatives all the time telling them to be less asshole-ish. Largely, they don't care, and send me polite emails saying so. They know I'm not their constituency, and neither are the rest of the poor people who would be screwed by your proposal.

@11 Must be nice to have all that time on your hands.

Also, to follow this 40-40-20 rule, would just screw over folks to live in Seattle and commute to Bellevue/Redmond area.

In times of revenue shortfalls Metro service should be prioritized by which routes carry the most passengers. I always see Metro busses packed to the gills in Seattle.

With the exception of commuter hours most Metro busses I've observed on the eastside aren't even 1/4 full.

@6: One would hope the Supreme Ruler of the Universe could distinguish between Sound Transit and King County. I guess omnipotence is not all it's cracked up to be. (Oh, and BTW, light rail is coming to the East side.)

@18: they're full at rush hour till the park and ride.