Tell the Council What You Think of Metro's Impending Cuts!


Fee or no, some of these that are slated to be eliminated should be eliminated.

The Kent express bus services for example, 158/9/162.

All they do is repeat what the local buses like the 169 and 164/8 do, then stop at Kent Station...where people should catch the Sounder. Instead they all continue on to Seattle as their only stop...completely redundant as they replicate not only Sounder but each other!

Too bad we can't use our iPad2 camera to record audio and visual commentary like in first world nations ...
@1 yeah, but the Sounder doesn't run every half-hour and until 2 am.
Gah, so all the major bus routes into and out of West Seattle could get smooshed? And the routes through Queen Anne to Ballard? BALLS, I say. BALLS!

Yeah, but neither do those express buses! They run in the same 3 hour period during the morning and afternoon as the Sounder!

Too bad Metro isn't using Android with Google Locate to track a sampling of what origins and destinations people are traveling...
@6: You keep bringing this up, so I just have to point out the following:

1. People who ride Metro are disproportionately low-income.
2. Low-income people are probably one of the trickiest markets for a fucking $200 phone.

Any "sample" you get would be biased at best and a big fat waste of money that Metro doesn't have at . . . well, at best. And don't forget how un-excited people of all incomes tend to be about broadcasting their travel history to the government (yes, the same people who don't protect their Facebook accounts) so I doubt many people would opt in, either.

I have to question this based on the success of the One Bus Away android app. Also, Androids with a cell phone plan are selling not for $200 but under $100 and will soon be the "free phone".

And if it's one thing a low-income person will not give's a slick cell phone.
Let's clarify that these cuts will not be "avoided" if the fee is passed but rather they will just postponed. Additionally, even if this temporary fee is adopted, a lot of these routes will be "restructured" anyway as a result of the adoption of the new Transit Strategic Plan and people will still probably reductions in their bus service even if they're paying the $20 fee.
They're raising fares and cutting service. I don't see what the big deal is.
we might win this one or lose it, but overall the deck is stacked against public transit (as is often the case against all things public these days). we're requiring drivers to pay for it. hence, it is a revenue stream guaranteed to produce resistance and conflict. these are the sorts of structural barriers that conservative interests have been successful in placing in the way towards public investment. the walls we have to hurdle for public investment are always a little higher than for other things.
@7 People who ride Metro are disproportionately low-income.

Try a bus going to the eastside, plenty of kindles, iphones, androids and netbooks. iPhone/Android are like 99$, w/o contract. Used are even cheaper.

As for the council meeting itself. Eliminate free ride zone, raise bus fares, register cyclists, in addition to raising the car tab. All those should be on the table. The entire discussion should not be about why my bus cannot be cut or how we can convince drivers to pay 20$ more. Drivers would pay 5-10$ more if you raised fares. I know this is for 2 years, but honestly, there's going to be a fight to make it permanent 2 years from now, which may or may not come up to a public vote.

Come on folks, stop giving Tim Eyman ammo!
Or just implement an asset tax.
This reminds me of the county bus service in Yorkshire (England) where a spokesperson, responding to complaints to customers that empty buses sailed past long queues of would-be passengers waiting at bus stops: "If the buses stopped to pick up passengers, it would disrupt the timetable."