Comments on: The Triplett Metro Plan (II)

By: But You’re a Blogger, Too - Seattle Transit Blog

But You’re a Blogger, Too - Seattle Transit Blog — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:44:34 +0000

[...] no opinion on the trolley buses, though I’d argue that not many other media sources have even asked about them. I think it’s great the buses are quiet and green, but I don’t how their costs compare. [...]

By: Will The Trolley Buses Go Next? — Save the Waterfront Streetcar

Will The Trolley Buses Go Next? — Save the Waterfront Streetcar — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:17:11 +0000

[...] not saying it isn’t there- I just don’t know. In a recent Seattle Transit Blog post, King County Executive Kurt Triplett was quoted as saying we had “3 years left” to make [...]

By: The Triplett Metro Plan (VI): Conclusions - Seattle Transit Blog

The Triplett Metro Plan (VI): Conclusions - Seattle Transit Blog — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:19:13 +0000

[...] Part II: Transit Now, non-service-related cuts [...]

By: The Triplett Metro Plan (I) - Seattle Transit Blog

The Triplett Metro Plan (I) - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:28:47 +0000

[...] See also Part II of this [...]

By: The Triplett Metro Plan (III): Tax Shifts and Financial Engineering - Seattle Transit Blog

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:53:57 +0000

[...] Part II of this report I covered $146m of the four-year plan to cover Metro’s $501m budget gap. Today, I’ll [...]

By: Jeff Welch

Jeff Welch — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:39:19 +0000

You can hardly blame Metro for the suspension of the trolley line. Sheesh, that one was City of Seattle all the way.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:07:19 +0000

Indeed, we should be concerned about the future of the Electric Buses – one wonders whether, when petrol is US$20/ gallons, we’ll be able to look back and say that KCMetro made the correct decisions by ordered 250+ new electrically powered coaches and closed the gap on 23rd Ave between Madison and Rainier to allow the south end of the 48 to become electrically powered as well.

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:34:21 +0000

No one wants to replace all the trolleys with streetcars. That is a strawman argument. Not a single proposed route is fully along a trolley corridor. Not one.

Streetcars remove car lanes? Really? Where?

By: litlnemo

litlnemo — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:15:22 +0000

Speaking as someone who lives on a trolley bus line, replacing them all with streetcars would be OK. It’s replacing them all with regular buses that I think is a problem for many of us. Noise, exhaust, ugh.

By: Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:20:16 +0000

No one at Metro wants to eliminate the trolleys. The City of Seattle on the other hand (read Greg and the planning goons) wants them all gone and replaced with … Streetcars! Yep, more Streetcars. They also get to remove more parking and car lanes! BTW, Metro didn’t kill the waterfront trolley, SEATTLE did in a series of moves to prevent it from being resurrected after the “Art” museum’s sculpture fiasco was foisted upon us.

By: Beacon Hill Blog » Archive » Could electric trolley buses on Beacon Hill be endangered?

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:58:03 +0000

[...] an interview with Seattle Transit Blog, short-term County Executive Kurt Triplett said they have “3 years to make that [...]

By: bob

bob — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:31:26 +0000

“a frequent express bus with a new paint job and fare inspectors” isn’t that what brt is

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:08:07 +0000

Over four years, as the quote says.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:07:43 +0000

Talking to Metro planners, there’s a lot of grumpiness over having to cough up the service hours to run the SLUT.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:38:23 +0000

The $83m in savings over four years comes from buying about 200 fewer buses, thanks to less planned service.

Is that $83 million each year or $83 million over four years?

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:23:07 +0000

Oh, okay! Then I’m glad I’m getting screwed over by Metro!

By: Christopher Stefan

Christopher Stefan — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:33:59 +0000

To be fair, the county council passed the requirement that sub-areas take a proportionate share of service cuts. Similarly it is some council members who are saying the RFA is costing Metro too much money. Not really “Metro’s” fault as they are part of KCDOT and dance to the tune of the Executive and Council.

On the other hand since the county gets paid to run Link and the streetcar I doubt they would be eager to give that up since it helps offset some of the fixed costs of Metro as a whole.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:01:57 +0000

Getting rid of the Waterfront Streetcar and probably the ETBs, demanding more money, cutting more service than anywhere else, gutting system upgrades, dismissing density arguments… it’s pretty clear Metro doesn’t particularly care for Seattle.

I’m surprised they haven’t said “we won’t run Link trains or the Streetcar, SDOT and ST need to do that.”

By: Christopher Stefan

Christopher Stefan — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:54:22 +0000

It sort of reminds me of what has happened with the Waterfront Trolley. Even today the official line from Metro is that the service suspension is “Temporary”. As we know from examples at MBTA and SEPTA such service suspensions have a suspicious way of becoming permanent.

Hopefully there is some Federal money for adding new or extending old ETB routes in the next transportation bill. I suspect the grant Metro received in the 90’s for electrifying the 70 what kept anyone from having a notion to eliminate the ETB’s in the last 15 years or so. Having to maintain the overhead in the tunnel and the electrical parts of the Breda’s probably didn’t hurt either.

By: Transit Voter

Transit Voter — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:52:12 +0000

Serial Catowner has it correct. Just remember the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar Line, how it met its demise. The long knives were out, and they found their mark.