Photo by Oran
Photo by Oran

On May 20, Metro staff made yet another presentation to the King County Council Regional Transit Committee, fleshing out alternative strategies for service cuts. The slideshow is available online. (ppt)

Metro presented two service cut strategies to build on the six they presented in April (pdf). One is a “refined” option that emphasizes high-demand corridors and eliminates routes to many low-ridership areas, tweaking a previous proposal of this type.  The other is a kind of blanket cut, the “blended” option, which hits peak and off-peak service proportionally. Both envision cuts to each subarea in proportion to that subarea’s current allocation, in accordance with Metro policy.

The refined plan sees annual ridership drop from 109.7 to 95.2 million, a drop of 15.5 million, while eliminating 104 routes. The blended plan sees a drop of 20.5 million annual passengers and only eliminates 40 routes.  Details below the jump.



For the blended scenario, Metro first went through to cut by 50% -75% routes that have poor productivity, and eliminate those that duplicate ST service.  Next, slightly below-average routes got the same cut, and then slightly above average routes took a 25% cut.  To get an idea of how your route shapes up in the performance hierarchy, check out this 2007 route performance report (pdf).

In April’s meeting, Metro had presented a plan that focused cuts entirely on off-peak service to maintain congestion reduction benefits, and another that mostly cut peak service to preserve all-day connectivity.  Those were combined into the May “blended” plan.

Metro also looked at slowing down the Transit Now rollout.  In this variant, RapidRide and Service Partnerships (where a city or corporation chip in some of the cost) are untouched, but the “Developing Areas” and “High Ridership Corridor” elements of the package would slow substantially. Since these would be reductions in planned growth rather than cuts, they naturally reflect the 40/40/20 allocation of growth rather than the roughly 60/20/20 of cuts. That is, cuts in Transit Now implementation are a net shift of resources to Seattle.   Metro’s analysis, in any case, showed that eliminating the proportionality requirement netted only about 500,000 riders in the blended plan and 1.5m in the refined one.

slide9About 800,000 service hours have to go away. The entire TransitNow program is 590,000, and some of those are already implemented. Simply freezing all service increases will not solve the problem, and would anyway leave $25m in federal funds associated with RapidRide on the table.

The good news is that route productivity will increase, which is actually obvious when you think about it. When you cut, you cut the least productive routes. Indeed, one reason that Metro is “inefficient” compared to other systems is that there’s a lot of service compared to those systems.

The presentation ended on a downer, with a chart (below) showing that in 2016 we still won’t have the level of service hours of 2009.


Thanks Governor Gregoire!

60 Replies to “Metro Presents Service Cut Planning Strategies”

  1. Massive changes to the Metro system are coming, regardless of which scenerio you subscribe to.
    I see a huge cat fight between council members to get the needed 5 votes for a final ordinance passage. It takes 5 votes: Seattle area only has 4 counting Julia, the south 3, and the east 2.
    Using productivity alone, cuts the east by half, if the 60/20/20 rule is suspended. Seattle’s ox is gored less by that measure.
    Transit now is an easy one. Suspend it, until times get better, but that still leaves a ton of hours left to cut.
    Some sort of comprimise will emerge that doesn’t leave the east and south sub areas ‘naked’. The politics of the final product will be interesting to watch.
    (King Counties episode of Survivor Island)

    1. One other thought on the topic, then I’ll shut up.
      King County could eliminate all routes that duplicate ST service (rail & bus). That effectively shifts the burden of funding that service for those riders to another agency. Not a bad idea, unless your ST, and have to add service to accomodate the overloads that would result. That doesn’t solve the problem, but does offer a partial way out.

      1. I wonder though how much Metro service there is that really duplicates ST service all that much. Metro pretty much has already dropped routes covered by ST Express service. I suppose there are some opportunities along Central Link for further cuts, but we already know how that went (see the 42).

      2. In the peak, there are many routes that duplicate things like the 554 and 522. Metro tends to top off the ST service and give one-seat rides to various neighborhoods, while you could instead drop them off at the P&R and let ST take them in.

      3. That’s exactly what I see happening on the eastside. Areas like the Issaquah Plateau aren’t dense enough to be running articulated buses all over and then running them into Seattle but 15-40 passenger buses could I believe deliver people to the P&R lot where they’d hop a bus into Seattle or feeder service to another area. By taking regional buses between P&R lots someone could effectively commute between eastside destinations without the current paradigm of going downtown and then back.

      4. Ah, true … though with some of that service there really is no duplicate. For instance at least half of the ridership on the 306 and 312 is South of 125th along Lake City Way where the 522 doesn’t stop. (OK I’m a bit biased as I take the 306, 312 sometimes both when I lived in Kenmore and now from Maple Leaf).

        Still between the 306, 312, and 372 that is a fair chunk of service hours and filling the holes left by eliminating them wouldn’t be too hard.

      5. I’m sure the 42 will be gone. Unproductive route, previously slated for elimination, and minimal runs (once an hour I think).

        I work in Sand Point so I notice the 30 is pretty empty in the evening, and it’s scheduled at the same time as the 75 which covers most of the same route. So that would negatively affect me but I could see it going away. I just hope they keep something on Sand Point because it’s a long walk from the 71.

      6. 306-Downtown-Kenmore (peak)
        312-Downtown-Bothell (peak)
        372-U-District-Woodinville (weekdays)

        After 125th/Lake City Way, the 372 and 522 run almost exactly the same routing, with the exception of a bit of Woodinville. The times I have taken the 372, the bus was nearly empty after getting to Bothell P&R-so I don’t see why they couldn’t turn the 372 into a U-District-Bothell route, and then have connection opportunities to the 522. They would have to revise the 522 routing because the 372 does make some local stops, but otherwise, it wouldn’t be a huge deal, at least as I see it.

      7. The couple of “unique” services the 372 provides are a single-seat ride between UW-Bothell and UW-Seattle (but the UW can do this themselves if it is all that important), local service in North Creek between UW-Bothell and Woodinville, also service along 25th ave between UW-Seattle and Lake City.

        In any case a one seat ride is nice but a luxury at the moment. Other routes can provide local service between Woodinville and UW-Bothell in North Creek. The 65 and 72 almost completely duplicates the UW-Seattle to Lake City service and another route could be added if the service along 25th is all that important.

      8. I’ve always wondered why the 73 still exists at least north of Northgate. The 347 and 348 provides 15-minute frequency combined along 15th. For service to the U. District, there is the 373. The only question is where to turn it around.

      9. In addition, the 28 could be extended along NE 145th St to provide neighborhood coverage to 20th Ave NE. This would also provide an east-west connection to I-5 and the services ST provide during the midday at NE 145th St.

      10. About the 73, you have a very good point there. The only real thing that you’d be missing are a few stops between Northgate Way/120th, but those are close enough to the 347/348 routing, as well as the stuff east of 15th. I could see them keeping it but maybe just have it go to Northgate, thus creating a downtown-Northgate via U-District route. As far as I know there wouldn’t be that many stops missed-I’ve rode the 73 many times and many of the stops that it would miss are rarely used. However, I think the main thing is the local service that it provides along 15th, so it would be worth it to keep it on there. I would absolutely NOT get rid of the 77 though.

        I like the idea of the 28 being extended to go to 20th NE. It wouldn’t be that much more of a time thing, and I have never really understood why there isn’t service going across I-5 at 145th, as you have the freeway station and everything. There’s already space for a stop on the overpass going east, as that is where the 373 used to stop.

      11. The problem with shifting service to another agency is that while it does make sense for metro, the overall capasity probally dosent exist in the first place. Some time ago it was proposed to have the 594 stop at FWTC to atleast in part replace the 194 when its funds get shifted to the “A”. Routewise this makes perfect sense, than when you start thinking about the logistics of it, it would be unfeasable because many of the 594 trips are already running full leaving TDS, and adding more riders and time to a already full bus would make things even worse. Now if headways were improved to 20 minutes from 30 (And coaches other than MCIs were acquired which could handle the route and load), it probally would be fine for the most part.

    2. Actually with Julia the West area has 5 votes: Larry Gossett, Larry Phillips, Dow, Bob, and Julia.

      The South has 1.5, and the East has 2.5 (Reagan Dunn’s district is split fairly evenly between the East and South).

      There is also a possibility Jan Hague might vote in favor of allowing cuts to be made regardless of sub-area proportionality.

      On the other hand it doesn’t look like there is any major push to suspend this rule so the West area is probably going to get 62% of the service hour cuts.

      On a more hopeful note there probably is support for treating the cuts as a service suspension so that when funding returns service hours don’t have to be added back according to 20/40/40.

      In an ideal world I’d like to see the service cuts made in such a way they have the least impact to overall ridership and without regard to sub-area proportionality.

      1. I’d like to see the service cuts made in such a way they have the least impact to overall ridership and without regard to sub-area proportionality.

        I think it’s important to pay attention to the concept of sub-area equity although I don’t believe that strictly applies to Metro the way it does ST. It’s only fair that the East and South areas get money in proportion to their contribution but that needs to take into account how much sales tax is generated and the cost including fare recovery associated with serving less dense areas. I think what we’d end up with on the eastside are more feeder routes and eastside to eastside buses with more forced transfers to commute into Seattle.

      2. Metro seems to base equity on service hours whereas the ST equity is revenue collected in a sub-area must be spent there. ST’s way is more along the lines you are talking about where the cost of each service hour is also a factor in allocation.

        I have no real issue with attempting to be more fair with service allocation when adding new service, but I think it is goofy to cut service on heavily used routes while keeping some lightly used ones in the outlying areas.

        Even if the transit planners had complete freedom to re-allocate service hours as they saw fit to meet overall service goals, I suspect some poorly performing routes in outlying areas might be kept with few cuts simply because that is the only service to the area. Though converting most of the rural routes to DART service might not be a bad idea.

      3. Yeah, I think that when the money is equalized, including cost of service, the decisions will start to based more on the efficiency of the routes rather than some ideal that people in Tulipbump should have a one seat ride to downtown. Hopefully there would be much greater local input on how the money gets spent. I think you’re right in that if outlying areas are told you have $X to spend and this is what each service cost we’d start to see a push for DART, greater use of van pools and more reliance on shuttle service to regional P&R lots.

      4. The problem with having subarea equity rules apply to service, is that it can prevent service being put in where it is needed. Likewise, it can make for some really crazy routing or service levels.

  2. Sound Transit needs to start bringing its horse out of the stables now because there’s going to be some serious agency consolidation in the future.

    1. After looking at Portland, we can certainly hope. It would be nice to have reasonable bus service across the King/Sno Co.

    2. How so? People keep talking about it but nothing ever happens. Perhaps because some of the biggest advocates of “governance reform” are anti-transit types trying to find more money for roads.

      Even with consolidation I don’t see much changing. Any ST tax revenue would have to go for regional services and be allocated according to sub-area equity. Similarly I’d imagine any current King, Pierce, or Snohomish County transit tax revenues would have to be spent on services benefiting their respective counties as part of any merger agreement.

      I’d absolutely oppose any sort of consolidation that resulted in transit agencies being merged with agencies in charge of roads or auto ferries. I’d also strongly oppose any “governance reform” efforts that gave the State a larger say in regional transit.

    3. Not for a decade, there isn’t. Metro has to have their house in order before they get combined with anybody.

  3. I’d like to see Sound Transit become more of a self-sufficient agency. They contract-out almost everything. Drivers, mechanics, bus bases, and on an on.

    1. In King County ST is required by law to contract with Metro. I can’t see where duplicating the overhead would increase efficiency for ST. It would also hurt Metro because they’d loose routes which are covered by contract reimbursement while still having to maintain the same amount of overhead. In effect this would increase the percentage of routes with low fare recovery further hurting the bottom line.

      1. Where in law is it “required” for ST to contract with Metro??? Citation, please.

      2. It’s required for them to contract, I believe, Metro just has the lowest bid.

    2. I don’t see it as a problem really, unless it can be shown that Sound Transit would save money by operating services on it’s own.

      Remember this would require a rather substantial infrastructure as they would have to hire and train drivers and mechanics, build bus bases, negotiate union contracts etc. While having Sound Transit Sounder or Link on their own likely wouldn’t require building additional facilities there still would be the issues involved in adding the necessary staff. With Sounder there would also be the added problem of how BNSF would react to non-BNSF crews operating on their tracks.

    3. Sam, that requirement was put in place to keep agencies from duplicating infrastructure and management. It’s a significant cost savings.

    4. Sam, you’re pretty much up for anything that successfully trolls STB.

      Next up, an expose about how Light Rail causes miscarriages.

    5. I don’t know, I think Sam is right on this one. Although it would take a pretty large capital expenditure to build ST Express maintenance bases around the area, it would save a lot of money that ST currently spends paying Metro, CT, and PT to run their buses.
      And one route that I think they could cut back on is the 7. I’m pretty sure they were talking about actually increasing service on that, while Link, just a few blocks away, is opening. Maybe they could cut that back from its current 10-minute service to, say, 15 or 20, and put a lot of those riders on Link. Also, I wonder how much they would save if they took some of those buses off the busway south of downtown and just had them go straight onto the freeway. It would probably save a few minutes every trip, and that adds up. And then by 2016 when U-Link opens, we’ll be able to way cut back on the 71/2/3. And we’ll be able to cut back on the 49 and 70 once the First Hill Streetcar and U-Line streetcar open over the next several years.

      1. 7 provides local coverage–Link doesn’t. If you don’t know how important a one seat ride is to some people, go stand at a stop that is served by both the 174 and 194. You’ll hear people that are getting off south of the airport take the 174 because it gets them within a block or two of their destination, whereas they’d half to walk over a mile or transfer–and get this–they’d have to transfer to the 174 because off-peak that’s the only thing that runs up and down Pac Hwy.

        It would take longer if the buses were routed on I-5 instead of the busway. That’s why the busway was put in–to save time going into downtown. From a 2006 pulication by Metro:

        In the mid 1990s, the state built a transit-only roadway along Fifth Avenue South between Royal Brougham Way and Spokane Street to help move buses more quickly between downtown Seattle and Interstate 5. There were multiple alternatives and options on the drawing board, and the one finally selected was Alternative E, Option 3. The “E3” designation stuck. Currently, the busway is being retrofitted for use by both buses and light rail. Sometimes you may hear it called the “SODO Busway.”

        So yeah, maybe mid-day it might save a minute or two–but have you ever been on I-5 during peak? It’s a parking lot.
        But for the sake of argument, let’s say it saved 3 minutes per trip. What are you going to do with those three minutes once you get downtown? The operator still has to take their break. You can’t just start the return trip 3 minutes earlier because, believe it or not, the timetable is actually designed to coincide with connecting routes.

        Even if the 71/2/3/4 terminate at Husky Stadium, not much can be done to cut them back, as they will continue to serve the areas further north. Metro probably will still want to keep the 15 minute combined headways for the people that use it north of downtown. And if all four routes do terminate at Husky Stadium, you’ll have a projected 25,000 people (by 2030) getting off there. Lots of them will want one of those buses. And lots of them will be taking Link because they can’t take that bus any more. So about all you gain is the 10-15+ minutes it takes to get downtown. Important: yes, life-saving: no.

    6. Sound Transit is considering building their own bus base as base capacity at Metro is limited. Having their own base allows more flexibility for ST to determine who should operate their routes like contracting them out to a private operator. CT does it.

      It was discussed in a Sound Transit Operations Task Force meeting more than a week ago. See Potential Cost Saving Actions document.

      1. Would they do vehicle maintenance at this base also, on only bus storage/driver facilities?

  4. IMO—and I think this is true—very few in-city routes will be cut, most of the routes are suburban.

  5. Another way to get to 600,000 hours of cuts would be to eliminate those routes, or spans of certain routes(off-peak, night) that have a higher than normal cost per rider (say over 8 bucks a ride), rather than using riders per hour. It makes a difference.
    Under that scenerio, the east takes the largest hit, roughly half of all the cuts, then the south, and minor cuts in Seattle.
    I’m not advocating that, just something that is bound to come into play. Bellevue and Redmond, along with Microsoft would come unglued if the Council starts talking $$ instead of hours.

    1. Mike,
      To some extent that would make sense as long as farebox revenue was deducted from the per-hour operating cost. Determining “equity” by service hours rather than actual costs vs. revenue just doesn’t make sense when money becomes the real limit.

      Doing sub-area equity for Metro more like Sound Transit does based on costs vs. revenue would be much fairer to everyone but the East sub-area.

      I doubt service to Microsoft would be curtailed all that much as with the amount of money they spend buying all their employees Puget Passes they are in somewhat of a position to dictate service levels.

      1. Your right, of course. The budget is in dollars, not hours. Plugging $100 million holes is next to impossible if sub area equity, 40/40/20 or 60/20/20 is followed. Then the big guns come out (MSFT, etc), with the “over our dead body” lists, and the Council ends up getting hung, shot, or thrown off a bridge.
        That’s why I think the honest brokers of this mess should be the Metro Planners, minus the turf wars, et al, and have them do what is needed to balance the budget with efficiency and mercy.

  6. Metro could save some money by interlining. Routes 150/174/194 could become 41/71/72/73/74/255 in the tunnel.

    1. I wonder how much this would save. It would certainly reduce reliability

    2. Interline the 174 with the 255. That would be a most excellent route to drive… Ugh.

      Seriously though, you’re going back in time. Metro has been moving away from interlining routes because service becomes unreliable. It’s still done and there may be places it could be done, however, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis here.

      1. … because it’s way too long. It’s amazing it wasn’t split in half years ago, as the 150 was, and the 7, 13, 15, 18, and 43. Because a little delay anywhere on a long route gets magnified. Whereas a split route isolates the delay in one section.

  7. So we have the property tax authority that was granted in the last legislative session, right–when are we going to put that on the ballot?

    1. It doesn’t have to go to the ballot; the County Council can simply enact it.

  8. Once upon a time, it was ALL Metro. Then someone said: “Let’s create a Sound Transit and then “contract” out the services – it’ll save money!” Right! Not really happening, is it? When I worked for Metro in the early 70’s, routes were implimented on a practical, as needed basis. Somewhere, somehow, routes sprung up everywhere, overlapping, duplicating and totally out of whack. Now you must cut to save the money you thought you already had. Be careful. A comment about interlining: In a small, inside of a neighborhood situation where two lines end up at the same terminal, it can work. We in LA went to interlining in a big way, sometimes sending buses all the way across the city to start a new route. Problem is LA is huge and buses more often than not, couldn’t reach the next line if ever they finished the previous run on time. Plus, buses are difficult to find by road supervisors because they begin their day with a line and bus run number that’s different from the line they’ll finish on. It can be huge mess if overdone. 42 is dead? Why did they put LTR down MLK anyway. I don’t understand the rationale. Someone please post that reasoning. Who would leave downtown Seattle for the airport via Rainier Valley? Ex-Metro operator and Seattle native transplant now in management at LACMTA.

    1. Metro didn’t do any of the things Sound Transit does, except for some of the east-west service.

      The only reason Sound Transit really operates bus service is to build express ridership for future rail.

    2. Once upon a time it was ALL Seattle Transit. Now that we have ST for regional service it’s time for the county to get out of the bus business and turn it back over to Seattle. Take the .4% (or whatever it is) sales tax and let local areas decide if they want to do with it (contract bus service or just eliminate the tax). Note, Seattle could probably fully fund Seattle Transit with less than .4% or use the efficiency gains to really increase service.

      In the report the threshold for less than minimum in the west subarea is 15% fare recovery peak, 13% day and 7% night. Eastside averages are 15% peak, 11% day and 8% night. When you look at riders per revenue hour the eastside averages 30.6 peak; the west subarea manages 35.5 at night!The east side can’t justify the level of bus service it already has. This cockamamie idea of increasing using 40/40/20 is completely backwards.

      1. One other reason to consider returning Metro to the City of Seattle. I was at the Bellevue Transportation Commission meeting tonight and there was a presentation on the Multi-Modal Concurrency Pilot Project. It was mentioned that one of the big reasons that transit is not considered in transportation planning (road LOS vs projected demand) is that the City has very little control over level of service and route selection. Bellevue is sincerely interested in using transit ridership along with other modes (ped, bike) in doing transportation planning. A means to that end would be to free up the tax money collected for Metro and allow Bellevue to spend that money as it sees fit. Likely a lot would be on contract bus service, maybe with ST as the broker. Some may be on dedicated Bellevue operated buses. Some might go to increased Link service. Some areas may lose transit all together. Who knows, they might decide to run a water taxi from Meydenbauer Bay to the UW but it’s Bellevue’s decision.

    3. > Why did they put LTR down MLK anyway.

      Because Rainier Avenue is too built up.

      > I don’t understand the rationale. Someone please post that reasoning. Who would leave downtown Seattle for the airport via Rainier Valley?

      Because Link is not meant to just be a fast way from downtown to the airport. It’s meant to facilitate trips between any two points on the line. Rainier to Sea-Tac, Rainier to UW, Capitol Hill to Northgate or Bellevue or Des Moines.

      In an ideal world there would be both a local Link through Rainier and an express Link on the freeway (with stops only dowtown, Sea-Tac, and Tacoma). But we had to cajole voters for 55 years just to get any rail built, and a line needs to go through residential neighborhoods to get ridership. Imagine walking from MLK over Beacon Hill to Albro Place to catch a freeway train — nobody would do it.

  9. “Who would leave downtown Seattle for the airport via Rainier Valley?”

    This is one of the two myopias I’ve noticed in a lot of comments about Link. The other is a tendency to assume that everyone riding Link will be doing it to commute to/from work. (I probably won’t commute on it because I don’t have a normal daily commute, but I plan to use it for shopping, going to the downtown library, going to baseball games, etc.)

    The first is myopic because it assumes that people going to the airport are always going from downtown. (Yes, it has a lot of hotels, but visitors to Seattle are not at all the only people who go to and from the airport. Locals travel too. And they work at the airport!) To take the 194 to the airport from Seattle, you basically have to get to downtown or the busway — there aren’t any stops in neighborhoods where people actually live (other than downtown/Pioneer Square/ID). 174’s not much better for that, and it’s slow. So those of us who aren’t already downtown have to either get downtown or to the busway with our luggage, or spend the money for a cab or Shuttle Express. This either adds substantial time or expense to the trip. I live on Beacon Hill and a cab to the airport is pricey, and Shuttle Express is expensive itself, and requires you to leave extra early.

    With Link, a large portion of Southeast Seattle will now be able to go to the airport both quickly and cheaply compared to previous options. Now I’ll be able to get to SeaTac from my house in half an hour — including the walk to the station, two blocks away — for, what, $2.75? (I forget what the fare is going to be… but it’s cheap for an airport trip!) Thousands of people live in the area that Link will serve, and many of those people have need to get to SeaTac for flights — and also for work.

    1. I think the big benefit will be to business travelers and tourists. Sure the people lucky enough to live in walking distance get a huge beny on the few times (on average) that they fly but for the other 98% of the folks the payback is Seattle gaining a not insignificant boost in it’s tourism, convention and business climate.

  10. Two things on the 40/40/20 rule and cutting Transit Now.

    Suspending Transit Now, although probably inevitable, is going to rub people the wrong way. It’ll be the second time the sales tax was raised to increase bus service, but instead the revenue was eaten by something else (rising fuel prices last year, the recession this year). Which does not raise confidence for future tax increases.

    As for the 40/40/20 rule shifting service from Seattle to the Eastside when the cuts are restored, we don’t have to do it now. It doesn’t really matter until we have the money to restore the service, in two years or five. That leaves plenty of opportunities to get the rule repealed or elect a more reasonable county council in the meantime.

    Although it may take longer because we seem to be in a Japanese-style recession. The Administration has done nothing to retire the toxic assets that caused this mess, or to break up the banks that are “too big to fail”. Instead it’s just putting a happy face on things and making some meager attempts at stimulus. So revenue and unemployment are likely to remain flat until the next zombie bank needs a rescue. The only thing that will really help is if gas reaches $5/gallon and stays there; that will presumably prod people to invest seriously in transit.

    1. I don’t think $5 gas is going to put the vast majority of voters (who don’t directly benefit from transit) in any mood to vote for increased taxes. One, they’re going to feel the pinch in their own budget paying more for gas or buying a new car that gets better mileage. Two, high oil prices choke off the economy so people on whole have less money to spend. Three, the tax base is smaller making projects all the more expensive per person. Again, for most higher taxes for transit is discretionary income.

      1. But $4/gallon did increase both ridership and support for transit last year. And people will support a higher tax if it lowers their total expenses (by decreasing their car-related costs), or if it makes some trips possible that people formerly drove to but now can’t afford to drive to. It takes something dramatic to get people over the hump, but once they do it’s downhill.

      2. If people are riding the bus because gas costs too much they are likely to support better bus service. Especially if those buses are crowded.

        Also I think Link finally opening should provide a bit more support for transit in general. I know lots of people who didn’t support rail until they went to Portland and rode the MAX or the streetcar. Having a local example up and running is even better. This is also the pattern seen in most other areas that have built rail, once the initial line is up and running everyone is suddenly in favor of building more as quickly as possible.

  11. Thanks for the comments regarding the use of MLK vs. Rainier Avenue. The picture is clear. Kind of like a “two for one”… I started life out in the Valley and rode either the 42(26) or the 7 downtown. The city’s come a long way. My brother designed the station at Othello so a portion of that line will forever has our family attached to it. When I visit “home”, I’ll be sure to take a ride on the line.

Comments are closed.