Fully Funded – Seattle Transit Blog

“ST doesn’t have to worry about pro-transit Liberal lawmakers. He has to worry about conservative or suburban anti-transit lawmakers. And I guess those lawmakers don’t care about free youth fares, or at least not enough to cause ST problems.

I think there is too much demonization on this blog, probably because it tends to be an echo chamber. It starts with labels like NIMBY, suburb, car sewers, etc., for people who disagree on housing, density, transportation, etc., but aren’t the ones trying to change the lifestyle of an urban planner.

The idea that suburban lawmakers care less about young people than urban lawmakers is wrong, and in fact if you read an Eastside blog they would claim that progressive lawmakers are the ones who took parks away from young people to the homeless, allowed crime to get away with it. dangerous for young people to be in public without adult supervision, and has created an urban society hostile to children because they often do not have children. Commuters are people with children who have moved to the suburbs to get their children away from the urban environment which they consider dangerous and immoral.

The problem of public transit in the suburbs is the same problem I’ve raised a million times: it doesn’t work very well. This mainly starts with first/last mile access, as it is too expensive and difficult to provide first/last mile access to such a large and sparsely populated area, and getting anywhere is a huge waste of time , especially if you work.

People drive in the suburbs because it’s a much better mode of transportation in the suburbs for their lifestyle, and it also exists in neighborhoods in Seattle, from West Seattle to Ballard to Rainier Valley and most other neighborhoods . There’s a reason MLK is overrun with cars.

When I read to my stomach on this blog that running tens of billions of dollars of light rail in remote areas like Everett or Tacoma can be justified if we just improve the area of ​​those remote areas with the mantra if we build it they will come (to live next to a highway) I just have to shake my head. The spine was dumb to begin with; putting lipstick on it still makes it a pig, which means fare clawback rates will be less than 20%. It’s like ST reading Wikipedia that the Seattle metro area includes all of the Snohomish, King and Pierce Co. and believing it, with fantastic population growth estimates.

The inhabitants of the suburbs are not “anti-transit” either. They just don’t care, especially now with WFH and far fewer commutes to Seattle for work, because public transit doesn’t affect their lives in any way. It’s like pretending they’re anti-curling.

The other factor is that their experience with public transit has been so bad, mostly crowded buses that they’ve driven in a park and ride five days a week to grab high heels to get to downtown Seattle so that they never go to downtown Seattle any other way. Transit had a chance to win these people over, or at least make them more sympathetic to funding transit for others, but failed, because transit is so arrogant and never understood the customer service approach.

So yes, when they think of public transit, they have very negative memories, which is why 23% returned to downtown Seattle when bars, restaurants, airports, etc. are full to bursting. They really, really hated taking public transit, and you can’t blame them. Since they’ll probably never take transit on the east side again with WFH, little congestion and free parking, there’s no way to change that perception.

When I see the word “anti” used as above, it really means someone is angry because commuters don’t want to give more money to a transit system they consider urban, bloated, arrogant and seedy, and they don’t use it. You place a local school levy on a ballot and it passes the east side by huge margins (which was McCleary’s basis). They are not “anti-youth”. They’re anti-urban, at least from what they see in Seattle, and Metro missed their chance to win them over when they took them prisoner as suburban slaves. Instead, he treated them like slaves. The good news, though, is that if East Link never opens on the east side, no one will notice or complain. It is not “anti-ST” or light anti rail. It’s East Link that doesn’t even come to mind. Already. If so, it would only bring back unpleasant memories of transit.

If you want free youth fares (given that fares are free on ST for everyone in Seattle these days), do it sub-area by sub-area. I think more and more transit advocates have to think sub-sector by sub-sector because they’ve lost the voter on the east side to levies or regional transit funding.

The eastern subarea has more ST revenue than it knows what to do with, even past Issaquah to S. Kirkland, and paying for Link across the span of the bridge, and ST express buses to Seattle and back, trains East Link continuing to Northgate when both Judkins Park and Mercer Island have rollback capabilities, and our park and rides are ‘extended’ into the ‘realignment’ which we no longer need, but I guarantee the east side would approve of free fares for young people, although public transit is equally poor on the east side for under 18s and over 18s, which is the real problem. That’s exactly why, like mom and dad, every Eastside kid who turns 16 wants only one thing in life: a car.

If you want taxpayers to pay more taxes for something, you have to show them a benefit to them in general, certainly something as lavish as Link. Believe me, few if any Eastside kids beg mom and dad for free public transit.