Report: 98% of people who actually ride the bus want you to shut the hell up about how great it is.

All mass transit is not created equal; here in Seattle, a city with buses and, well, nothing else, unless you're specifically talking with someone about monorail or lightrail or streetcars (you know, theoretical mass transit), when you're talking about supporting mass transit, you're talking about supporting buses.

rainy-commute.jpgAnd buses suck.

Last week, Erica C. Barnett had a column in The Stranger that spoke to our experience riding the bus to and from work daily:

It's dirty, smelly, hot, and slow, and the only people who do it are the people, like me, who have to. The overwhelming majority of us, I believe, would rather ride in peace—not in a gold-plated private jet, not on a flying carpet. All we want is a regular bus. We just don't want to be harassed, offered drugs, crushed against people who smell like booze and piss, or sucked into confrontations we didn't ask for.

True that, Erica. True that. We get on the #14 to the ID on the run's third stop in the mornings, and more than half the time, it's already standing room only. The morning commute is slightly less hobo-y than other lines (like, oh, any of the 70-series running between the U and downtown), so there's less BO and crackheads. But it still sucks, particularly if it's rainy and wet, when the bus is hot and damp, the windows are fogged up and you're either sitting under someone dripping rain water off their coat, or dripping rain water off your coat onto someone else. And this being the Northwest, the scenario isn't exactly rare.

But today, Barnett was back on the Slog, taking on the editor of The Seattle Times op-ed page, whose moronic take on the news that Metro—after six years—is planning on raising fares by a quarter, is that instead, they should lower fares.

Actually, while the headline suggests lowering fares, the text itself is largely about increasing access to the buses at tax-payer—rather than rider—expense. But Barnett's criticism of the editorial, that "People who support adding vast numbers of riders to the bus system while cutting the revenues that would make the bus system able to serve those riders are people, like the members of the Times editorial board, who don’t ride the bus" is apt. We're constantly reminded of a great Onion article from a few years ago that came under the headline: "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others." It may be fake news, but it's still true.

Indeed, mass transit is one of the strange areas of public policy here in Seattle where the people who control it have absolutely no personal stake in the quality of the service (unlike, say, schools), yet a large segment of the middle class does (unlike, say, programs for the poor, where an homage to caring frequently suffices). So we heartily welcome Ms. Barnett's call for a rider's union who can not only help support Metro by virtue of its membership, but also represent the needs of ordinary commuters who are forced to suffer on their way to work or play every day, in exchange for adding a bit less pollution to the atmosphere and for keeping one more car off the road. Some thanks we get.

The image, Scenes From a Long Commute #7 -- Rt. 5 From a Bus, by Grundelpuck, is from our Flickr group. Thanks.

Email This Entry


Comments (11) [rss]

user-pic

It'd be nice if there were some sort of accountability. Between buses not even starting their routes on time, bus stops missing posted schedules, and buses *whoops* not stopping, it gets to be drag.

What gets me is that there is a more or less unofficial Top 10 list of things you can do to improve bus riding (no Free Zones, pay at kiosks, conductors to take tickets, roving inspectors, etc.) but no one seems to be leading the charge for this in Seattle. We get extra buses, but the system itself needs optimizing -- without that, extra buses just offer more inconvenient trips.

The thing about bus fares is that actually collecting the fare costs a surprising amount of money. So while reducing the fare is an obviously stupid idea—same collection overhead for less revenue—scrapping it altogether would cost Metro considerably less than the gross income from all those $1.25 and $1.50 it collects.

it totally depends on the route, some of the routes don't suck. Some suck a lot. I'm lucky enough that my route doesn't suck, the worst I can say is that some days I have to stand for about 10 minutes, that's not so bad and no different than any other big city.

For the routes that suck, here's gotta be something that can be done and some of the ideas floating around are not bad. All we can do is keep pushing Metro to make it better.

user-pic

Over in NYC, they have the Straphangers Campaign, which watchdogs the MTA (their Metro), releases reports on the slowest subway line, most crowded subway line, etc. It's a really well-run operation. Not sure who funds it.

It's not clear how trains would solve drug and BO problems. A train ride in NYC or Boston suggests that they don't.

Not that I'm against building tons of light rail -- it's just that trains won't cure all that ails you.

The problem is that even on the "better" routes--Sound Transit route 545, which transports docile computer geeks exclusively in the morning and afternoon, is probably the best route in the system--the bus experience still sucks. You get there two minutes after the bus leaves and have to wait 20 minutes in the rain for the next one. Riding the bus in the rain is exactly the humid nightmare that Jeremy describes, which is inconvenient when you don't want to show up at your destination looking like you just ran a marathon through a rainforest. You're stuck in the same damn traffic as the cars, which means that during rush hour you never know if it's going to take 20 minutes to get there, or 50 minutes. And on and on.

I spent a week in DC earlier this month taking the subway everywhere. The worst trip I took on Metrorail, I can say with some confidence, was better than the best trip I've ever taken on the 545. I've always wanted to pose just one question to the bus-only fanatics like Ron Sims and the Times editorial board: King County has what could justifiably be called the finest bus-only public transit system in the nation, and it still sucks. What could possibly make anyone think that more of the same is going to change that?

The mode of transportation actually has an impact on commuters in the sense that they prefer some to others. For instance, Portland installed a downtown streetcar about 10 years ago. It was originally derided as a kitschy sort of tourist trinket, but it turns out, people really like riding streetcars (in a way they don't with buses) and it beat all its ridership predictions. So no, trains and the like don't eliminate gross people from mass transit, but to assume that the cheapest, least appealing option (buses) is the best because it's, well, cheap, ignores the other benefits you get out of things like a streetcar or light rail or, God forbid, a subway. All these options have their own unique value-addeds: people enjoy streetcars as a form of public transit; light rail is more efficient and reasonably inured to traffic.

Heh. Just moved here from DC, and while I do/did adore the metro, all is not perfect there either, believe me (fires in the stations, regular breakdown delays, ridiculously crowded trains, huge need for more cash, plus the fun of two states and the District government having to get involved?)

That said, rail kicks ass, and while it doesn't solve all problems (and I still took the bus in DC sometimes), it would be a great addition here. (I'm taking the bus to/from work here)

My gut feeling is that all the people who complain about busses sucking and being too humid and being stuck in traffic and all the other stuff, are exactly people who don't ride the bus.

How do I know this? Because it's the same stuff I'd say before I became a regular rider.

You know what sucks? Driving. Read the craigslist rant & rave for instance, 50% of the posts are road rage mad commuters who come home just to spend time ranting on the 'net to make themselves feel better.

I would challenge people who live near bus routes to really give it a try for a month and then report back.

Buses work reasonably well between the city and suburbs. Go to a park-and-ride lot some day and you'll see thousands of people who prefer the bus to driving their cars into the city. Among the reasons: lack of parking, gas prices, subsidized bus passes and reduced stress.

However, depending on buses within the city is no picnic. They're typically crowded, a lot of the riders are sketchy and, since th buses are subject to the vagaries of weather and car traffic, often not timely.

The argument that people in the suburbs favor roads over mass transit is a convenient fallacy. You'll find much evidence to the contrary at the Eastgate, South Kirkland and Lynnwood park-and-ride lots, among others.

I walk. Which only sucks when it rains like it did today.

I'm tired of buses being 15-20 minutes late. I'm tired of people not going to the end of the bus. I'm tired of people not having fares ready. I'm tired of 12 year-olds screaming louder than infants. I'm tired of not having a fucking rail that comes every 5-7 minutes and not having to deal with traffic.

So I'll buy an umbrella and make sure I work within a 20 minute walk to work. Or, if that won't work, a 20 minute bike ride to work.

Now yes, I understand not all can live near work, but more of us can try.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Seattlest

Seattlest is a website about Seattle. More

Editor: Regis Lacher Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

In Woodinville there's a hole-in-the-wall charcuterie named Bill The Butcher which has the most outl
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Seattlest.

All Our RSS