[techsupporter]

> and King County Metro is just a shit show in general.

Ah, yes, I was wondering if I was going to read this here. In the same sentence that you give BART a pass for stopping at midnight and not going "everywhere," Metro gets written off completely. Even thought it has a 5am to 1am span of service, 14 night owl routes, daily express service from as far out as North (freakin') Bend, and is the most-used mode of transportation to jobs in Seattle, it's a "shit show."

[seanmcdirmid]

Erm, there is also Sound Transit, which completes the system a bit.

I wish it wasn't all bus based; Portland does much better than Seattle in this regards.

[bronbron]

Unless it's changed DRASTICALLY in the last couple years, yes it's a shit show.

I would frequently walk home from Fremont to Ravenna because it was 2 AM and there was no way to get home aside from getting in a cab (and good luck competing with the million other people trying to get a cab that time of night), or waiting maybe an hour for a bus to maybe come by when it was supposed to. At least in SF there was no illusion of public transportation to get me anywhere very far after midnight.

As to why it's a "shit show" as compared to other cities, Metro is constantly in limbo and notoriously unreliable. Didn't they just cut a bunch of routes because of budget shortfalls? http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/service-cuts.html

EDIT: The whole reason OBA is/was even remotely popular is because of how notoriously unreliable buses are in Seattle.

[techsupporter]

They cut some low-hanging fruit (and route 47) because of a budget shortfall, yes. But if you read the same link you posted, you'll see that the remainder of the cuts have been dropped. Seattle is even holding a vote in November to buy service for expansion.

As for being notoriously unreliable, I suppose we'll have to chalk it up to different circumstances. I've regularly commuted from Lake City and the CD to the Eastside for years, even during off-peak hours when there aren't any one-seat expresses, and have been late maybe twice. Metro's collection of buses seems to work great for me.

[bronbron]

> They cut some low-hanging fruit (and route 47)

They cut 20+ regular routes. Even if they're "low-hanging fruit", that's a lot.

> Seattle is even holding a vote in November to buy service for expansion.

I wish for the best. Seriously. I think Metro is doomed to live in a constant state of limbo, where only serious service cuts will spur Seattleites to do anything about it. I think it's a greatly under-appreciated service in the city.

> As for being notoriously unreliable, I suppose we'll have to chalk it up to different circumstances.

That's fine, but again, OBA serves as solid proof that I'm not the only one who was frustrated by Metro's unreliability (otherwise timetables would be perfectly adequate).

EDIT: This has gotten off-track. Even if you disagree about how bad it is, Seattle public transit absolutely pales in comparison to NYC's public transportation system. I don't think that's really up for debate, and anyone suggesting otherwise I posit is delusional.

[jpatokal]

Sorry, any public transport system that relies on buses as the backbone will be a "shit show". Buses are uncomfortable, slow, unreliable, get stuck in traffic, etc etc. "Bus rapid transit", dedicated lanes and so on ease the pain a bit, but at the end of day, they just can't compete with any service that has fully dedicated right of way.

[techsupporter]

Unless you've dug a subway, how do you get people to the rail lines? Park and rides? All that does is encourage suburban sprawl to drive to a rail station.

There's no reason for buses to be uncomfortable and unreliable beyond popular perception. I've ridden trains in Dallas that have worse onboard conditions than bus routes in Seattle.

[jpatokal]

You do what everybody outside the US does: build housing within easy walking/cycling distance of the stations.

And it's a simple matter of right of way, not "popular perception". A train runs on its own tracks, so it can be scheduled to the second and stops only when needed. A bus shares the road with other traffic, and is thus subject to traffic jams, traffic lights, other cars driving crazily and breaking down, nutcases running across the road and so on, which means lots of unnecessary stop-and-go (compared to a train) and a chronic inability to stick to a schedule.

[seanmcdirmid]

Seattle buses are immensely more comfortable than the subway we have in Beijing (but then dammit, I just take a taxi).

[jpatokal]

But can you imagine what it would be like if Beijing had only buses instead of subways?

[seanmcdirmid]

Yes. There are still many places the subway doesn't go. The buses are also crowded, and sometimes you have to wait in line for a couple of hours even to get on (especially to/from the suburbs). Of course, you might have to wait for 30 minutes to get on the subway during rush hour (e.g. finding enough space to fit in to an open car).

My only point here is that everything is quite relative (i.e. first world vs. third world problems).

[seanmcdirmid]

As for bus rapid transit, I found the new West Seattle service to be quite fast and efficient (although West Seattle was already pretty accessible before).