I’d prefer before November, of course, since it would take work to get things going. And actually, even earlier if possible.

I say earlier since we’ll hemmorhage support from a large chunk of people at UW and in Central Seattle when U-Link gets going and people begin to feel that they’ve got what they want out of ST.

A totally grassroots campaign could work, especially dividing out into subareas. Flyers and all that, a simple website explaining points, etc.. We could even hand-deliver pamphlets in our particular sub-areas if needed when people inquire but can’t gain access to the website. I don’t know if we’d have to go the entire route of using Robert’s Rules, but meetings could be created easily.

I’ll go ahead and propose a meeting at Piecora’s at 14th and Madison on a future Saturday afternoon.

First meeting to discuss direction, goals, support levels (as in “Positive toward all transit” or “Prefers bus, neutral on rail” or “Neutral on transit, economically minded, wants congestion solution”) and how far this should go. Given my experience with Metro (bus was 45 minutes late today, for example), I’d say the discussion needs to be opened ASAP.

There is a bus that does a decent job getting to my work, but it only runs ONCE an hour, and I have a fixed schedule that would make me wait 45 mins before and after work.

I’m sure that route does not have that many riders, but I would take it everyday the weather stunk if it ran more often…

the whole idea of subarea equity – be it for bus service hours or any other transportation spending – doesn’t really make sense philosophically. proportionally distributing cash vs spending regional money where it can do the greatest good is beyond arbitrary. the nature of transit and transportation is moving people to, from and through places – building and maintaining these systems sometimes mean you need to spend more (or less) in different areas to make the whole thing work. tying funding to the notion of subarea equity just makes hard problems harder by adding a completely arbitrary extra dimension.

I think it’s more useful to planners to say what you’re willing to give up that you actually do value.

I’d be curious what the funding flows are between the various regions. Does the Eastside subsidize us? Do both Seattle and the Eastside subsidize South County? I’m genuinely curious to know.

Ideally, we should revisit the crazy 20/40/40 rule, which I need to write about.

As long as Sims is county exec, it’s going to stay that way, too. The short term thing we can do is elect Larry Phillips.

Morgan: “Supply and demand” can’t be applied to transit that easily. There’s a massive societal cost to driving including pollution, road maintenance, and congestion. I wouldn’t flip if fares were raised again because for most people it’s still a value compared to gas and parking costs, but anything we can do to increase ridership will in the future usher in increases in service.

(And the last fare hike didn’t affect me because my bus pass is subsidized so I kept paying only $20 for a pass whose face value went up to $1.75.)

also, i think it’s time the county council declares an “emergency” and suspends the 40-40-20 rule. i’m all for service cuts on the least-used routes (not eliminating the routes entirely in most cases, but perhaps ending the failed experiment with suburban buses that have the same headways as the #43 or #7 in town). if the goal is to serve as many customers as possible as well as possible, it’s time to ditch that rule. this also makes sense given the growth patterns and growth management we want to drive (and the explosive growth in-city). there is a letter i wrote about this in friday’s seattle times though it’s not really connected to the budget shortfalls.

But what they REALLY should be doing is building electric rail systems, including passing ST2 here.

Or am I just turning into you?