The real problem is any sort of 100% grade separated West Seattle to Ballard line would be hugely expensive.

I suspect the best we can hope for in the near future is a Link-compatible line from SODO to the WS Junction with a mix of at-grade (MLK style) and elevated segments, with perhaps a very short tunnel just big enough for a station in the Junction area. As for how to get across the Duwamish, I have no idea. It depends on what is possible engineering wise with both bridges, what is possible politically as far as taking lanes from cars, and what the overall project budget is vs. the cost of either a new bridge or some sort of tunnel across the Duwamish.

For Ballard the best bet at this point looks to be the Fremont/Ballard streetcar line. It would most likely cross the Ship Canal over the Fremont Bridge. There is a good chance the line would mostly grade separated (at least to the MLK level) along Westlake and possibly between Fremont and Ballard. This in no way would preclude doing a light rail line in the Uptown/Interbay/Ballard corridor. Any more so than having the 17, 26, or 28, precludes the 15 or 18.

My greatest fear is that McGinn will rush a watered down LR plan onto the ballot and the WS to Ballard line will end up being little more than a glorified streetcar line. If you believe the ridership estimates that have been done for this corridor, then the city really needs to build Central Link caliber LR and not SC. Building SC just wouldn’t satisfy the demand and would actually delay the implementation of real LR in this corridor – once again short-changing Ballard and WS.

Also, I don’t see going to the ballot this year as a good strategic decision. I’d develop a real plan and then put it on the ballot during a presidential election year when voter turnout will be higher (and more liberal/progressive).

There are several part-time work assignments that go past 8pm. I’ve worked one and remember being surprised by the quit time. I was never able to find the contract language that had a specific cutoff time.

As I mentioned above, we also can work full-time work (halves of combos and overtime trippers) but only if no full-time operators are available to work them. It happens but FT drivers get first crack at Overtime.

In general, however, what you are saying is correct. We part-timers are reserved for the rush hours except for the rare mid-day assignment. The system is pretty much setup to make us the most expensive employees that metro has when you include benefits. Figuring out a system where we can take on more of the tripper work makes sense.

Metro has that for part-timers. It’s called the Additional tripper list, or ATL. However, ATL eligible shifts are limited to to part-time shifts only. In other words – a part-timer can only be assigned to an ATL piece of work if it is vacated by another part-timer on leave or otherwise unable/excused from their shift. ATL assignments are seniority based. As a result, people higher in seniority (like VeloBusDriver) get assignments practically daily, while people like me get them more rarely. At any rate, no part-timer can work any shift or part of any shift if that shift occurs after 8pm, or on a weekend or holiday. Hence – even if someone who is full-time calls in sick or is on vacation on a Saturday or Sunday and I am available to work that shift at straight time – I can’t, because of the union contract. They must assign that work to a report operator or give it to someone on the call list as overtime.

Part-timers may not work holidays at all. Ever. Even if they’re available. Even if they want to.

And no, it isn’t easy to plan your life around this kind of schedule, but split shifts are the norm even for full timers for what can be the first several years of employment. As it is, since I work the ATL in the afternoons, I usually don’t know until the morning of that day that I have to come to work that afternoon, and it can be to drive a shift as short as an hour long (though the paid minimum is 2.5 hours). For Velo, whose regular work is in the afternoon, he may need to call in on Sunday to find out if he has work Monday morning, providing he has made himself available for Mondays. Otherwise, he finds out if he has work the next morning when he reports for work the evening before.

“Extra Board-Group of individuals (usually with low seniority numbers) who fill in for open work assignments when needed, the order of the board depends on the last time you worked or when you came off your day off, whoever is at the top of the board is the next person called for an open job”

It would appear that this setup might give part-timers more chance at 40 hour weeks with what would be ‘overtime’ jobs otherwise. However, then I would think it might change the benefits picture. Of course, that would be up to the union to negotiate. Along with how holidays would get worked.

Although I don’t think it would be very easy to plan your life around a schedule as described above.

Not sure how they could, as any combination of 8-hour shifts represents a full-time position (or several).

Metro can eliminate/reduce overtime simply by allowing part-time workers to work past 8pm, to work weekends and holidays, etc.

Metro is game. The union (despite the fact that we part-timers pay the same union dues as full-timers) is not.

The current contract is already designed to maximize a full-time vs. part-time ratio. What you suggest would – without exception – displace full-time workers. I’m against that.

Allowing part-time workers to take work normally reserved for full-timers at overtime would substantially reduce the Metro budget all on it’s own without eliminating full-time positions, as your suggestion would.

On the other hand, again there’s no practical reason why part-timers shouldn’t be able to work evenings, weekends, holidays, shuttle and other pick-work that would otherwise go to full-timers at the overtime rate, usually just over $40.00 an hour.

Velo said he see’s part-timers as the “pressure valve”. At other employers I’ve worked at it was OVERTIME that was the pressure valve, teh option of last resort, doled out only when available straight-time employees schedules were exhausted.

At Metro, the ATU has ensured that part-timers see substantial restrictions on when they can work and how much for the express purpose of protecting overtime availability for full-time drivers. As a strictly economic matter, there is no good reasons for this, and I believe that Metro shouldn’t pay out a dime of overtime when there are folks willing and available to fill work at straight-time.

Benefits:
More choices in a schedule for part-timers
Less night and more weekends off for full timers
Metro saves money by being able to assign split shifts on weekends