12 Replies to “More on Mariners Shuttle”

  1. This is ridiculous. Let’s have another STB letter-writing campaign! It sounds like from the bottom of that post on the USS Mariner, that the best way to make a change is to send it snail mail, so I’m gonna do that.

    1. Since it is a Federal rule write Sens. Murray and Cantwell and whomever your Representative is.

      1. Already tried writing Reichert. He pretty much parroted the Bush/FTA line about not “burdening” the taxpayer with such shuttle services. Uh, yeah, right… Oh well, my fault. I voted for the guy to “balance” the democratic Tsunami – I’m a ticket splitter at heart. Oh well, that’s what I get I suppose. Until 2010 of course… ;)

  2. Another reason I hate this rule, is that it could affect the Seafair shuttle, and unless Starline buys a fleet of New Flyers, they are not going to be able to handle this type of operation. You need more and wider doors to load quickly. Remember, Metro is using a city street and sidewalk to load Seafair crowds. Now it might be a good reason to build a cushion in the 50 or whatever route that replaces the 39 under the guise of providing a connection to LINK.

  3. uh oh. Just read that the Metro Water Taxi is extending service for the Mariners game. What if some clown with a rowboat wants to provide that service?

  4. Now I don’t like the rule any more than you guys do but, unlike the blog linked above wants to make it sound, the thinking behind the rule is at least logical.

    Businesses want to be able to compete on a level playing field with government-subsidized agencies.

    We might ask ourselves why there isn’t a rule allowing Metro or other governments to also pay subsidies to private companies that produce service of benefit to the public.

    For example, it is my understanding that part of the crazy cost for Starline is that they are not allowed to use Park & Ride lots or bus stops as part of providing their service.

    Isn’t this a good example of where we should be promoting more public-private partnerships in order to expand public service?

    1. The problem is this overturns longstanding practice. Transit agencies have been providing special service for large events for a long time. Suddenly the FTA says a transit agency can’t provide the service if a private operator is even interested in bidding. No regard to if the private operator is serious or even capable of offering the service provided.

      Governments do provide subsidies private business for services of public benefit. For example the essential air service subsidies.

    2. “Isn’t this a good example of where we should be promoting more public-private partnerships in order to expand public service?”


  5. Anybody who lives/works downtown and is impacted by all the extra car traffic on game days (especially weekday afternoon games) needs to send the M’s and the FTA a bill for ANY delays caused by this impasse.

    Class-Action lawsuit against MLB?

Comments are closed.