WhenEliseSings/Flickr

This is an open thread.

81 Replies to “News Roundup: Human Development Index”

  1. I know it doesn’t really effect me at all, but I would probably feel a little less conflicted if those silly trolley buses in Gig Harbor were electrically powered… or at least hybrid.

    Of course the idea of an actual rail line running through Gig Harbor is also out of the question unless their population went up a couple orders of magnitude while I wasn’t looking….

      1. Ah, maybe that was the slimy feeling I had down my spine, thanks.

        Yeah this is especially silly when there are such drastic cuts going into the core transit service.

        “But look! We can pretend we still have trolleys… that work on gas instead of electricity”

      2. @Brent Well if you care to sit on a bus for 2 hours and some change… (and this is from downtown Seattle!)

        The worst thing about going between towns here is the transfers between buses. The are not very well coordinated at all. To get to Gig Harbor it looks like you have to change buses twice in Tacoma alone.

        That and the “express” bus between Seattle and Tacoma appears to take about an hour.

        Is there no nonstop bus service between our major city centers? I suspect there would be takers.. especially on the weekend.

      3. I think it’s ridiculous that there is no one non-express bus route from Gig Harbor to Downtown Tacoma. It seems so obvious to me. For a while I had to go there from Federal Way, and it took 3 transfers and 3 hours to get there (transfer at FWTC, then at 10th and Commerce, then at TCC). They say it would duplicate service, but couldn’t they just combine route 100 with one of the myriad of routes that go between downtown and TCC? It would be a new trunk route. 100 + 16 might be good. 100 + 53 would be terribly slow and long. 100 + 1 actually isn’t a bad idea!

  2. Amtrak should look to VIA bike policy recommendations. On the long distance runs just show up with a bike, no need to box it. Costs around 20 bucks.

    Shorter runs like the cascades need more space for bikes, the five dollar charge I don’t mind but sure would love if it were like the Sounder where I could just take it on myself.

    1. Bicycle access on the sounder and link is pretty nice. Now if only there were better paths to bring bicycles to the stations….

      Would use it more if I could get my bike there easily.

    2. I know I’ve made this a pet peeve of mine before, but it just frustrates me to no end that there’s no way to get your bike east of the Cascades easily. Amtrak?Dismantle and box it, $10-15 charge. Trailways? Box it and get charged $50. Greyhound? Dismantle and box it, $30-40 charge. Alaska? Boxed and $70 extra.

      Some of best bicycling to be had in the U.S. is in North Idaho, including a gorgeous and flat 73-mile paved trail, yet most guidebooks recommend taking two cars so that you can have one at each end of the trailhead. Ugh. Someday I’d love to roll my (assembled) bike off the train in Spokane, bike the Centennial Trail and the Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes, and put my bike (unboxed) on Greyhound in Kellogg for the return to Spokane or Seattle.

      1. Wait, they have guidebooks for areas east of the Cascades? All my maps just say “Here be dragons.”

      2. I was not aware that it was so difficult to get across country on bicycle… and yes that is a bit odd.

        I do admit though that most major cities I have been to with rail disallow bicycles on the trains… instead they have bicycle parking garages that you pay to store your bike in.

        Usually people keep a bike in a garage on each side of their destination.

        Maybe we can help create the first real bicycle positive cross country here in the US… if only we could get more people to actually be in favor of bikes (and not just in running them off the road).

      3. A couple weeks ago, I tried to organize a one-way group bike ride from Mt. Vernon to Seattle, using the temporary Sounder run to get to Mt. Vernon. Unfortunately, the train got cut before we had a chance to use it, and the regular train to Mt. Vernon just doesn’t have enough bike capacity to plan such trips as a group without booking months in advance. (You can still do the trip individually, though, although it’s not as fun).

    3. Agreed — shouldn’t trains be better than any other mode at accommodating bikes? They have so much more space available than other modes, and the marginal cost of adding an extra baggage car cost is small.

      1. The trouble is basically that Amtrak is running out of rolling stock — Amtrak baggage cars date from the *1950s*. Some new ones are on order but who knows when they’ll arrive.

  3. Huge increases on cross-lake ST Express ridership well outpace Link percentagewise. Metro cutting crosslake service would be ill-advised. Those buses are packed even after we legalize the device for dematerializing aisle blockers. Speaking of aisle blockers, word to Sen. Tom and Rep. Clibborn: Those packed buses are full of *your* constituents.

    Meanwhile, the 510/512 is losing ridership quickly. Was I wrong about the 512 restructure, or is Everett dying on the vine? Or is CT scavenging riders from ST with its focus on growing its armada of commuter buses? Note that CT’s fares are higher for similar routes, suggesting that commuters value their time over saving a dollar a day in fare. Or is ST’s fastest-growing service (percentagewise), the Sounder alternative bus, scavenging riders from ST Express?

    1. Actually, in aggregate Link ridership was up 12%, ST Express was only up 8%. Those are really strong numbers for Link

      It doesn’t really make any sort of sense to compare average Link ridership to one cherry picked bus route. At least not if you seek truth.

      1. Correct: Link outperformed ST Express in average ridership gains, and outperformed cross lake in total ridership.

        But it is silly to compare Link to just a few cherry picked bus routes. Best stick with the real numbers: 8% gain for ST Exp, 12% gain for Link.

    2. Did you not read the note about a change in the way ridership is estimated on CT-operated routes? ST says that the older method may have overcounted the ridership.

    3. I think it’s about the previous over-counting. Pretty much every 510/511/512 bus I see is packed (during peak) or more than half full (off peak), same as it ever was.

      Meanwhile, something has to be done about the 550 situation. There simply isn’t enough capacity. It’s rare for anyone to be able to get on at IDS during the 5:00 hour. If ST can’t have any more peak tunnel slots, then it should pay Metro to operate a clone of the 550 during peak.

      1. Instead of a clone of the 550, why not a slightly different routing that serves a different set of riders? Maybe SK P&R -> BTC -> Wilburton P&R -> MI P&R -> downtown.

      2. Legibility and simple corridors. I’d be OK with adding a few stops the 550 doesn’t make (as with the 522/312 combination), but not with adding a separate corridor that would be served only a few times at each peak trip.

      3. Over the last week or so, I’ve seen a fairly regualr phenomenom at University Street. After 5pm, no 550’s show up until about 5:20, then they run a 550, a couple terminating Metro buses, perhaps a 218, and then 2 550’s in quick suggestion. The 550 becomes crush loaded at University, and is pretty much worthless to anyone else. The next bus is almost empty at University, but fills up by the time it gets onto the freeway. The third bus runs empty.

        It looks like they are running into difficulties dispatching buses regularly, that boarding is taking too long, and that running two modes that apparently have to be kept completely separated is eating tunnel capacity.

      4. Virtually every crush load on the 550 I’ve seen occurs between the DSTT and South Bellevue. Beyond that, you can almost always find a seat, in both directions (Some afternoon rush hour peak trips are an exception).

        All that’s really needed is a Metro DSTT, Mercer Island Park & Ride, and South Bellevue turnback route. Run it reverse peak direction during major events (for virtually free, mind you) to manage crowds. Charge peak 2 zone fares and run it every 10 or 15 minutes, making sure to coordinate the schedule with the 550.

        Assuming Metro and ST get in a room and coordinate the schedules, ST could actually *drop* frequency slightly (say to every 10 minutes) and use the extra hours to push frequent service further into the evening, 10 min headways further into the day, or more reverse peak trips (see note about afternoon reverse peak trips above). The latent demand on the 550 corridor, even without additional P&R capacity, is huge.

        Core service provided by ST for a larger span, peak P&R traffic provided (for a slightly higher cost to the rider) by Metro, all in the same location (DSTT). What’s not to like?

      5. Response to William Aitken:

        Those situations occur when traffic on 520 is jammed and 550’s that are scheduled to deadhead downtown via 520 can’t make their pull out time. There are probably ways to deal with this problem, but all would require keeping “Fill in” or “Standby” buses available – Translation, $$$.

        I’ve noticed Metro doing this on the C & D line lately but I haven’t fully figured out how these “fill in” buses work yet. I had one pull out in immediately in front of me scooping up a large majority of my typical passengers on my C Line trip. Despite that, all the seats on my bus were still full heading to West Seattle along with at least one standee that I noticed.

      6. How about an express variant of the 550 that in the southbound direction, didn’t serve South Bellevue P&R (and get stuck for multiple light cycles pulling in and out of it)?

      7. “Meanwhile, something has to be done about the 550 situation.”

        Wasn’t that what East Link was supposed to be for, before it became a project to build new HOV lanes on the floating bridge for enormous amounts of money?

        (Seriously, look up how much those two-way HOV lanes are costing. Comparable to an entire rail line.)

  4. Possible positive development on the intercity high speed rail front: the FRA has started a rulemaking process to modernize the crashworthiness standard to permit European style crumple zone designs in place of the currently restrictive rigid standard. Not likely to result in any change any time soon for the Northwest’s Amtrak Cascades away from the Talgo train sets, but should eventually help the U.S. move towards faster passenger trains.

    Here’s a link: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/fra-committee-oks-hsr-crashworthiness-standards.html

  5. There’s a curious thing in the ST ridership statistics for Central Link. Total boardings exceed the Q1 budget, but both boardings per revenue vehicle hour and boardings per trip fall short of the budgeted numbers. Could this be because seasonal variation and/or a projected increase over time is built into the quarterly budget for total boardings while the budget is annualized for the other two measures?

  6. Just how many options would be possible with the Aloha extension that they could be whittled down and still have options left? It’s not like the Tacoma streetcar spiderweb alternative map.

  7. I’m surprised that you haven’t mentioned that Professor John Pucher declared Seattle’s Bike Lanes more dangerous than Manhattan’s in today’s Seattle Times. Probably the paywall issue.

    1. Given that ST’s paywall can be removed by clearing your browser, the article should be linked. That said, putting that article front and center was clearly trolling for comments by the times…

  8. It is interesting to see Bruce Harrell align himself a bit more closely to McGinn from a policy standpoint. This is a good strategy, in my opinion. I think if I ran, I would basically say I am just like the current mayor with regards to policy, but a lot better than him from a leadership standpoint. I think this is a winning strategy, but I’m not sure if it gets him out of the primary. At this point, I’m not sure if anything gets him out of the primary. Steinbrueck seems to have the “good old days of Seattle” vote in hand, while the other three candidates are a lot more similar. This suggests that Harrell and Murray will split the “I like the mayor’s policies, but think he is a poor leader” vote, leaving McGinn and Steinbrueck to fight it out in the general election. All of this will lead to the mayor getting reelected. This won’t be surprising, but would have seemed highly unlikely a couple years ago. It’s a wonder what 4% unemployment will do for a sitting mayor while the rest of the country is still in recession.

    1. I think Murray has more support among “middle-grounders” than you think. Much of the Seattle establishment is not Steinbrueck-reactionary, but they are not looking for a McGinn-without-the-sharp-edges either. They are looking for someone who is really focused on downtown and economic growth. Murray is taking great pains to sew them up, and they have a lot of influence.

      If I had to bet at this point I’d bet on Murray taking one of the general spots, with Steinbrueck and McGinn battling it out for the other, and McGinn narrowly winning. In that scenario, Murray is our next mayor… and I’d put down $20 on that outcome. I just hope he sees the light a bit on in-city transit.

      1. Could tomorrow’s meeting at Ballard HS have mayoral implications? The current mayor is the most pro-transit, but his love of the “rapid” streetcar– particularly from Ballard to Downtown– makes me shake my head and look at the less than stellar alternatives. Just out of curiosity, how much of the mayor’s base lives in Ballard and north Seattle?

      2. I think the mayor isn’t as “in love with” rapid streetcar as a lot of people on here seem to think. He understands the need for grade-separated transit to Ballard. The reason he talks up the streetcar isn’t because he feels it’s the only solution, but because it’s a city project (as opposed to a ST project).

        I’d have more faith in McGinn than in any of the other guys to throw the city’s weight enthusiastically behind Sound Transit’s Queen Anne tunnel.alternatives.

  9. I found this interesting article on a binge of web surfing a few days ago:

    http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/agendaitems/6-4-13%20Item%2010.5%20King%20County%20trolley%20bus%20purchase.pdf

    It’s San Francisco officially attaching themselves to King Counties’ Trolleybus order. There’s also this interesting tidbit of information:

    “WHEREAS, King County Metro issued a competitive request for proposals in May 2012 to procure 100 standard trolley buses, with an [b]option for250 additional standard buses[/b], and 55 articulated trolley buses, with an option for [b]125 additional trolley buses[/b]; and,”

    I wonder how much additional service that would mean if the options were exercised in full by King County. Also, I’ve heard that Dayton also wants to join in on Seattle’s order too.

    1. Dayton’s RTA could use them. They’ve had the same ETBs nearly since I was born. (I grew up in North Dayton)

      1. Dayton actually has the same model of Trolleybus that San Francisco has currently, though I think Dayton’s version is slightly older than San Francisco’s by a few years. But yeah, King County’s options might be enough to electrify almost everything worth electrifying within Seattle city limits, and then some.

      2. It’s very cool that Dayton has managed to keep its trolleybuses, but they are getting *really* old. And small orders of buses or trains usually cost a fortune.

        It’s really good that Seattle is ordering a bunch of trolleybuses, because every other city with trolleybuses in the US is going to piggyback on this order. Dayton really really could use them. SF could certainly use some too. How about Boston and Philadelphia?

    2. I’m sure those options are for San Francisco and Dayton. That’s far too many trolleys for Metro even if “everything worth electrifying” were indeed electrified.

      1. The options present within this contract wouldn’t be enough to replace San Francisco’s fleet, because MUNI runs more ETB’s than Dayton and Seattle combined, but they’re enough to at least cover what’s currently eligible for federal funding (the replacement of Dayton’s fleet and the replacement of MUNI’s E60 New Flyers from the 90’s, the ETI’s won’t be eligible for replacement for another 3-4 years). But still, it would be interesting to see a map of what 375 ETB trolleybus fleet would mean in terms of electrification, as it seems to mean increases in frequency as much as it means expansion.

      2. To put things in perspective, Metro’s entire Seattle/North King weekday network only requires about 325 buses. 375 trolleys is more than they could possibly use during the timeframe of this order even if they started throwing all their capital dollars at electrifying things left and right, whether or not ETBs were the best mode.

        Honestly, in my opinion, there are only about 4 more corridors that are decent candidates for electrification. With all of those and increases in frequency, I can’t see a need for more than 220 total trolleys under any circumstances.

      3. Let me guess, the corridors are East Madison, Central 23rd, 12th Ave and Denny? (Maybe including the proposed 13 extension to Fremont and 3 Re-routing) I see things somewhat differently, especially in regards to the areas north of the Ship Canal. I would want to electrify several routes in that area (with the 66/67 being one of my main targets) and build a second ETB yard in that area (you guys could really use a second ETB yard, and have better connections to your existing one).

      4. Yesler, 23rd, Denny, and Madison, in that order. Bonus points for 12th and the Fremont extension.

        The problem with electrification north of the Ship Canal is that most north-end routes 1) aren’t hilly enough to really benefit and 2) have at least some distance on relatively high-speed streets. The portion of the 66 between UW and Northgate is about the only good candidate there is, and that could be electrified today if you wanted to through-route it with the 70 (which I wouldn’t want to).

      5. Well, I do see the 67 absorbing the 66 and 41 once North Link comes around, rather than merging with the 70. But back on topic, I’d see the 5 and 16 north of the ship canal, especially if Ballard Link opens in the form of Ben’s option 9 being rather good candidates for being electrified, as would the 28. I also think the 38, 65 and a 48N/71N electrification should be considered.

  10. Has anyone else had trouble with onebusaway over the past couple of days? Mine has stopped reporting completely.

  11. Let’s talk BRT – the poor mans version of light rail. Faster to implement, less costly to build, better than a bus, NOT rail.
    We hold ST to a high standard of accountability for projects, reporting, and transparency – and they do a good job at all three.
    Should we expect less from Metro when they roll out their own version of BRT (RapidRide), using BRT funds from the FTA? I don’t think so.
    A 53% gain on RR-A is commendable, but is that where the story should end? Where is the comparison to what it replaced, the MT174 shuttle between FWTC and TIBS? When they doubled service hours on the line and only got a 53% gain after 3 years, I have to question if the increase in costs are justified.
    Where’s the 25% gain in speed to offset some of the additional trips? That would be nice to know.
    And if RR-A has gained 53%, but combined with the other 3, lowers that to 30%, then one has to dig more deeply into what the other 3 are doing.
    OK Metro, cough up some data if you’re really serious about accountability. Ask ST how to do it, if in doubt. The fence sitter public is waiting prior to the big tax increase vote.

    1. What about the fact that 15-minute frequency is more convenient to riders than 30-minute frequency, and that we should be in the business of making transit convenient on all major corridors in the county, of which Pacific Highway is definitely one.

      1. I agree Mike. OTOH, transit should be sustainable. For all I know, all the RR lines are outperforming the estimates given to the FTA for funding – Cost, Ridership, Speed, etc.
        Are against knowing how those are doing, and just accept the 15 minute service, regardless of outcomes?
        Holding public agencies feet (and they have many) to the fire is the best way I know to ensure money is spent wisely.
        Otherwise we blindly sail off into an abyss, and wonder why the lookouts were never posted.

    2. mic, we already have some data for the A line in the 2012 RPR. You’ll get your data for C/D in the 2013 RPR. The routes have only been in service for nine months — not enough to come to intelligent conclusions.

      1. Nice try, but the Route Performance Report of previous years was ‘dumbed down’ to 100 pages of transit babble called the Service Guideline Report in 2011. All you can find out now is riders/hour and riders/mile.
        How many hours are dedicated to a route? How efficient is it?
        Metro has gone to great lengths to hide it’s performance from the public, choosing to clump routes into winners and losers from behind a magic curtain. “Trust Us, we know what we are doing.” Tell that to the 17% of riders who will lose their service next year.
        RR-B started in Oct of 2011, so there’s another route with nearly 2 years of data.
        RapidRide is Metro’s flagship change in this decade, and almost nothing from them on how it’s going. By the time the next watered down version of a report on service shows up, all of the 6 lines will be up and running in 2014, with little public scrutiny of how the first 2 or even 4 lines performed.
        Of course, gathering a bunch of politicians for inaugural speeches is not a problem.
        http://www.youtube.com/v/ch7TbgGm0HY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcccccc&color2=0xcccccc&autoplay=1
        This is the same crap that ST pulls with their projections in 2030. By then, it’s too late to make any corrections that matter. “Trust Us, we know what we are doing”.
        Maybe, maybe not. So far I’m not impressed with ridership, station location, or design. Billions will be spent, with little retrospective and nothing to do but accept whatever the outcome will be. Hell, they can’t even get an FTA mandated Before and After Report out the door 2 years after it was due. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

      2. This has happened before. I refer you to the RPR; you complain that it’s “dumbed-down”; I tell you all the same data as before is in the appendices; and you complain that “no one reads” the appendices. Don’t blame Metro because you’re too lazy to go through the whole report.

      3. You”d make a great fencing partner, artfully deflecting each thrust.
        I’ve looked at all the appendixes, which by the way are sideways, with upside down headings to discourage anyone that tries to read them, and somehow can’t seem to find how many service hours were allocated for each route. It must be there if you say so.
        Aside from the tit for tat we’re playing, Metro is virtually silent on how RR is going, except to cherry pick one number from RR-A. (53% gain in 3 years) BRAVO.
        At what cost?
        To you it doesn’t matter.
        To the riders losing their service – it’s a bigger deal.
        end of sparing with you!

  12. Why do the westbound route 545’s detour into the OTC, but the route 554’s don’t detour into the Eastgate P&R?

      1. First off, you are answering a question I didn’t ask. I didn’t ask why do all route 545’s service the OTC.

        Secondly, every westbound 545 after 12:00 PM detours to the OTC.

        Thirdly, The distance from the westbound 40th Street 520 ramp to OTC is the same distance as the the east and westbound 1-90 142nd Place SE freeway ramps to the Eastgate P&R.

        Why don’t the 554’s detour down to the Eastgate P&R like the 545’s detour to the OTC?

      2. The difference in the connection is not about distance, it’s about stoplights. The connection between OTC and the NE 40th Freeway requires crossing two stoplights with long cycles that are timed in the worst-possible way for pedestrians, guaranteeing that at the second light, you will be waiting for the full cycle (unless you jaywalk – sometimes running and jaywalking together can allow you to catch up to a 545 at the freeway station that you just missed at the transit center).

        At Eastgate P&R, however, you don’t have to go through any stoplights at all to make the connection – it’s just a straight walk. Furthermore, if you are parked in the top floor of the garage, you can connect from the freeway stop without having to go down the stairs, putting the two locations about equal distance from your car – so the detour would buy you nothing. Finally, most bus connections that can be made at the TC can also be made at a stop along 142nd Ave. just north of I-90, so you don’t even have to go down the stairs to make bus-bus connections either.

        All-in-all, if we could build a pedestrian bridge over 520 that would connect OTC to the freeway station, while bypassing all the lights, the walk time would be as little as 1-2 minutes, and the detour would look extremely silly. Over the long haul, we could probably pay for the bridge with the service hours saved on the 545, alone. The bridge would also be convenient for accessing the future Link Station. Maybe, Microsoft would chip in for it too, as it would be useful for building-to-building walks within campus as well, even if no transit is involved.

    1. The reason is actually pretty simple. In the afternoon, the sheer volume of westbound 545 passengers is enormous. So enormous, in fact, that the westbound 40th St freeway stop isn’t big enough to fit them all safely.

      I believe that the detour exists solely to accommodate this crush load of passengers. I’m assuming that this situation doesn’t exist for the 554.

  13. I know two people that would be transit-loving, yet ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) interested to capture such ana image containing the Ship Canal Bridge variable message sign and an ST bus.

    A private company cannot advertise their logo aside from a handful of exceptions on any of Seattle’s skyscrapers for free, but has to pay for bench ads. I feel there is a slight double standard in that respect. These ads may also end up taking room obstructing ped access violating ADA mandates.

  14. Sitting on I-5 traffic day after day, I thought of a crazy idea that might allow a lot of cross-lake travelers to have a shorter trip.

    1. Change the routing of all SR-520 buses that currently go through downtown. Instead of using Denny/Olive, they would use Mercer and Broad between I-5 and 4th/5th. (This involves pulling the 255 out of the tunnel.)

    2. Extend the 550 to Overlake Transit Center. Pay for this by some combination of reducing frequency on the 545, and/or terminating some/all 566s or 567s at Bellevue instead of Overlake.

    3. During peak hours, split the 550 into 2 or 3 buses, a la the 510/511/512/513. One bus serves only Mercer Island; one bus serves only South Bellevue P&R; the remaining bus serves all stops outbound from South Bellevue (including Bellevue TC and Overlake TC). (The MI/SB buses might be combined.)

    I think a combination like this could end up being better for virtually everyone:

    – People traveling between Redmond and Belltown/LQA/SLU now have a direct bus, rather than having to suffer through Stewart St traffic, just to backtrack later.

    – People traveling between Redmond and northwest Seattle (UQA, Fremont, Ballard, Wallingford, Greenwood, etc.) can connect at the north end of downtown, rather than having to deal with downtown traffic twice.

    – People traveling between Redmond and South/West Seattle can connect to the 550 at ID Station, taking advantage of direct access ramps and HOV lanes for the whole trip. This would also probably be the fastest trip for people whose actual origin/destination was downtown.

    – Splitting the 550 avoids peak crush loads, which means faster boarding and fewer tunnel delays.

    – Likewise, by extending the 550 to Redmond, the 545’s demand gets split in half (between people heading north and people heading south), which means fewer crush loads.

    This is just a crazy idea I had while stuck in traffic, so please go ahead and tell me why it’s terrible :)

    1. If you think Stewart traffic is bad, just wait until you see Mercer traffic.

      Also, Broad (east of 5th) is going away as part of the DBT construction.

      I don’t think using 405, surface streets in Bellevue, and I-90 is going to get you a faster trip from OTC to IDS than 520, even at the peak of rush hour.

      Splitting the 550 into pieces at rush hour might have some merit, although the truth is that total capacity is just too low. I think two pieces would be enough — one short-turn route for Mercer Island and the main route which would be the same as today’s except without the Mercer Island stop. The challenges are 1) getting the balance between the two right and 2) keeping some kind of connectivity between Mercer Island and Bellevue.

  15. I have another ST route 554 question. How come on Saturday and Sundays, when there is some kind of large, special event occurring in downtown Seattle, the powers that be don’t factor that in, and switch the type of bus to be used for the day’s service from a 40′ bus to a 60′ bus?

    1. Because not enough people have complained to Metro about overcrowded 40′ buses. Complain to Metro and maybe they’ll do something about it.

      1. Is this the reason that the 40 has been stuck with 40′ coaches—is Metro really that deaf to the overcrowding issue?

      2. Kyle, I’m not inside, but my impression is that the 40 still has 40′ coaches because 60′ coaches are generally stretched too thin at Atlantic/Central/Ryerson. The 40 got a few more 60′ coaches at this past shakeup, but should really be all-60′.

    1. You have to unclog your state government first, and get it to allocate a little more money to rail.

Comments are closed.