Then you should care about proposed changes to Metro service coinciding with the opening of light rail this year.

I submitted these comments:

Hi, I live on Capitol Hill and often ride the 8. I rarely see an empty seat on that route, even when it’s running every 15 minutes. Extending the route further south sounds fine to me if it will support more frequent service, because the 8 badly needs it; even 20 minute headways off-peak are not nearly enough. But I’m also concerned that a much longer route, replacing a lot of the current 42 and 48, could compromise reliability; by the time the Seattle Center-bound bus gets to Capitol Hill, it may often be well behind schedule. How will Metro keep a longer route running on schedule?

More frequency on the 60–YES! We need it!

Bus service should be coordinated with light rail, and Link should give Metro an opportunity to redeploy service hours to non-rail routes that need them. But Seattle is cheated out of the service levels it deserves and forced to subsidize inefficient routes in exurban King County (e.g. North Bend??) because of the 40-40-20 policy. This contradicts the County’s goal of increasing farebox recovery ratio, and must be scrapped.