Here's a link to Maria Tomchik's article with my response below: I want to make it clear that i do not blame Metro for the problems detailed below. The management is reacting to the collapse of their consumption-tax-driven revenues.
http://www.eatthestate.org/improvements-at-metro-well-see-3/comment-page-1/#comment-1343
"Crowded buses are one thing. Buses that run chronically late (when they bother to show up at all) is another."
The buses that run chronically late are the ones which run most frequently. Such routes serve areas where demand is high, and it is so because of density inthat area or one through which these routes pass. It is not possible for W. Seattle or UD buses to run on time consistently due to the logistics. And it is extraordinarily rare when Metro blows a run. It happens, but very infrequently. Most importantly, it is never because Metro doesn't "bother." You will find among bus drivers the same range of personalities one finds in the general public. If you look hard enough, you will find apathetic drivers, but again it is unusual. Metro management is anything but cavalier when it comes to covering runs. We get recruited, sometimes aggressively, over our communications systems whenever a bus goes down and a run need covering.
"Metro’s on-time record for its in-city routes has become abysmal."
When last I looked we were number three in the nation with an 87pc efficiency rating. The only thing abysmal about metro is the tired commentary it elicits from whiny critics.
"There is no excuse for making passengers stand for more than half an hour in the downtown bus tunnel at 7 pm waiting for a bus to the University District; yet this is becoming a common occurrence—and these are the most frequently travelled routes in the entire system."
First, whether they are in the tunnel or on the surface is of no consequence, the driver still has to get to there. It is an advantage yes, but Mariner and other problems in the south, and Stewart in the north can back up sand do.
At 7pm there should be a bus to the UD every 15 minutes or more often. It is extremely rare to wait 30 minutes for a bus at that hour, and shame on Maria for saying otherwise.
And again, it is because they are frequently traveled routes that they run in a less timely manner. The bus headed out to the UD likely came in from there at about 6;30 or so. That means all surface roads until Convention Place.
"It’s also common to stand in the bus tunnel for long periods of time (20 to 40 minutes) with no buses arriving at all, but plenty of empty light-rail trains at seven minute intervals."
The hell it is! I drive the tunnel and we throng through it all day. After the evening rush frequency slows (as it should), but for there to be no buses in 20 minutes (let alone 40) is extremely uncommon. In addition to driving, I ride metro, and I have an apartment in the ID, I have never waited 2o minutes in the tunnel without a single bus passing. Never!
"Even worse are the drivers who are routinely early and who suffer no consequences for it. I recently flagged down a #67 bus that was speeding by a stop a full ten minutes early. The driver shrugged his shoulders and said: “those times are just estimates.” Well, no. They’re not, at least not for the rider. We expect the bus to be on-time when we’re standing outside in the rain in 40-degree weather. Ten minutes late is okay, but ten minutes early? Never!"
No driver is routinely early, it's impossible!
We receive points against our record for bad performance. If we get too many, we are suspended. More still, We get fired. Running hot (being early) gets you three points, and the pleasure of a heart-to-heart with your base chief, always a joy.
There is a fleet of supervisors on the streets every day checking our times (among other tasks). Metro is most vigilant about schedule, and there are severe consequences for drivers who run hot. Shame again on Maria for this lie.
Yes, Maria, there are estimated times and hard times. And they are not determined by weather conditions.
And if you don't like the rain, you live in the wrong place.
"The main cause of Metro’s on-time problem is simple: Metro recently shortened drivers’ layover times at the end of each route. Now drivers have every incentive to zoom through their routes early; otherwise, they barely get a bathroom break before they have to begin their next route. This is a prescription for a chronic on-time problem. Extending driver’s break times, of course, would cost money which Metro doesn’t have."
Gee, Maria, this third-person omniscient tone sounds as though it came from the ST. "zoom through", now that's funny. You know it's really hard to run early when you are always running late. These shortened lay-overs haven't resulted in buses running early (if you are on time then there would be no need to push it), just the opposite. Other than one's first run of the day, we are often getting to our terminals after our recovery time (the time the next run is supposed to begin), consequently we are starting late and, despite what Maria would have you believe, it makes it far more likely that you wil arrive at your next terminal late than early. This has become something of a hot issue at Metro with drivers becoming increasingly willing to voice their complaints to management about recovery times. It's no fun to always be running late; there's no time to go to the bathroom, and customers are often angry when you arrive late making for an unnecessarily long and contentious day.
But in any case, Maria has it exactly backwards.
Maria ends with some nice thoughts but they stand in contradiction to everything which proceeded it.
