text:
Metro's Political Problem Hits Georgetown
Posted on December 4, 2015 December 3, 2015 by David Lawson
Route 124, using some hastily un-retired equipment. Photo by LB Bryce.
The last few weeks have been deeply discouraging for close followers of Metro. First we learned that Metro and the King County Council were raising the white flag on any significant effort to improve Link access, or bus service generally, in Capitol Hill. Then we got wind of Metro's new proposal in SE Seattle, which would resurrect a redundant service pattern that Metro already canceled once because of low ridership, while cutting a couple of services proven over the years to perform better.
In both cases, the common thread is political interference with professional planning decisions. That needs to stop. In a time of plentiful resources, entire neighborhoods with thousands of residents–including Summit, east Capitol Hill, and Georgetown–are about to undergo major cuts in bus service for the sake of appeasing a few activists who do not represent many riders. The process hands ammunition freely to those who would paint transit as a sop to special interests and a waste of public money, rather than the core public infrastructure it is.
The Council adopted a professional service planning process (the Service Guidelines) in 2011, based on guidelines enacted into law, to avoid what had become a chronic pattern of micromanagement by Councils and Executives that left the county with an incomprehensible, spaghetti-like transit network. The process has resulted in meaningful service improvements and sharply increased ridership in neighborhoods across Metro's service area, and helped ensure that Seattle's Prop 1 funds went to solving real problems. But recent events, almost all occurring behind closed doors, appear to be signaling that the Council's professional process is essentially dead, and Metro is back to direct planning by politicians and their appointees. Along with the public, we are reduced to relying on hearsay, rumor, and leaks; the players offer little or no insight into how decisions are made until after the fact. More details underlying this state of affairs as applied to Georgetown in particular, after the jump.
How Georgetown Loses In Metro's Proposal
The SE Seattle proposal is centered around routes 38 and 106. It would split today's 106 into three parts, restructuring them as follows:
South part (Rainier Beach to Renton): Combined with route 38 to form "new 106," and doubled to 15 minute frequency
Middle part (South Beacon Hill): Replaced by an extension of route 107 at similar frequency
North part (Georgetown to downtown): Not replaced at all, except with a few extra peak trips on route 124
In addition to repackaging the 106, the proposal does two other things:
Reduces the 9X to peak-only, replaced at other times by transfers at 12th/Jackson between route 7 and the First Hill Streetcar or route 60
Extends the "new 106" past Mount Baker into the International District, along the same route as the current route 7, and a very similar route to former route 42
Let's look at who gains and loses under this proposal.
Residents in Upper Rainier Beach, Skyway, and northwest Renton see their frequency double
Riders along MLK gain a new frequent, one-seat connection to Renton
The very few riders of former route 42 get their one-seat ride back–with quadrupled frequency overlapping an already ultra-frequent corridor!
Riders in South Beacon Hill lose their one-seat downtown service, but gain connections to the rest of Beacon Hill, Link, and Renton, with no change in frequency.
Riders in Georgetown see their downtown service cut in half (from 106 + 124 to 124 alone), except at peak hours in the peak direction. They get nothing in return.
Riders of the midday 9X have to transfer, although the transfer is frequent on both ends.
To summarize, we trade major frequency improvement in Skyway and the resurrected one-seat ride between MLK and the International District for major frequency cuts in Georgetown.
The frequency improvement in Upper Rainier Beach and Skyway makes good sense. In 2014, route 106 served 5,100 daily riders. That is on the very high end of ridership for half-hourly routes, and well over half of those riders were from the southern portion of the route. Joining the south portion of the 106 with the 38 is also very logical, and will provide improved connectivity to riders of both routes without any meaningful downside.
The tradeoff that does not remotely make sense is cutting Georgetown service to fund the International District extension of the new 106. Route 124 carried 3,400 daily riders in 2014, with slow but steady increase in recent years. Data Metro provided to me this year indicates that about half of those riders were from the greater Georgetown area and points north, with the other half traveling to and from points further south. Current route 106 also picks up quite a few riders in Georgetown; between the 106 and 124, my estimate is that the Georgetown-downtown segment serves about 3,000 total daily riders. Combining these riders with the rest of route 124, I would estimate there are about 4,700 total daily north/south riders in the downtown/Georgetown/Tukwila corridor — more than Metro carries on a number of existing 15-minute routes. And, sure enough, Metro itself identifies the target frequency of the 124 corridor as 15 minutes in the most recent Service Guidelines Report.
In other words, Georgetown could be deprived of its existing (roughly) 15-minute frequency, despite ridership warranting it, in order to spend $2.5 million to restore a route segment that carried fewer than 100 daily riders in its final year.
We have heard multiple rumors that the 106 extension to the International District is being driven by the King County Executive's office, not by Metro planners. We've also heard that SDOT was asked to help fund the extension with Prop 1 funds but refused, citing Metro's own Service Guidelines. But rumors aren't hard evidence, and we've made a public records request to Metro in an attempt to corroborate them. Sung Yang from the Executive's office denied on the record that the Executive's office is driving this proposal, attributing it directly to Metro planners in a conversation with STB's Zach Shaner. Whichever part of King County actually originated the proposal, there is little reason to think it represents anything other than political interference with the planning process (perhaps at the behest of one or two disproportionately influential stakeholders), at the expense of a less well-connected area. In sharp contrast to the wealth of data Metro offered in support of its proposals during the early stages of the Link Connections process, we've seen no data of any sort that supports the 106 extension from a planning standpoint. Choosing winners and losers politically, in direct contradiction of data and the enacted planning process, is not how to build an effective transit network or use our tax dollars wisely.
123 Replies to "Metro's Political Problem Hits Georgetown"
As somebody who uses the 124 a few times a year – thank you Museum of Flight – I am a bit nervous here. Seems to me well used if not almost full Route 124 buses are going to have to carry the Georgetown burden a bit or a lot more.
I am also not happy at how King County Metro is at the mercy of the heckler's veto. This is so not okay…
I'm not sure why David is so upset by this latest example of transit yielding to political masters and throwing professional planners under the bus. Maybe it's the 'Last Straw' issue.
I won't try to give too many examples or names to associate with the deeds, but our list of bad outcomes is a long one.
1. A West.Seattle STEX run to Burien that thankfully got cancelled after years of single digit riders.
2. N. Sounder that refuses to die being supported by a certain Mayor
3. Stations and stops all over the place that should close, but don't
4 _____________ Pick your own (here)
"N. Sounder that refuses to die being supported by a certain Mayor"
I suspect it's the Mayors of Mukilteo and Everett that just won't let go. You?
David Lawson says:
Proposals that would actively make the network worse are a lot more irritating than existing legacy problems that can slowly but steadily be fixed.
I also spend more time writing about Metro than ST because I know a lot more about it.
K H says:
Thank you for this piece, David.
The series of articles on what is occurring with Metro's planning and community outreach process over the last few days has been excellent.
When the post came out about "resurrecting" the 42 routing between downtown and MLK a few days ago, I thought it was just a joke. Like something the STB would write on April Fools' Day. This is a service that was highly underutilized, should not have continued after LINK opened, and finally was put out of its misery. Now, Metro was proposing to double down on more service on a corridor already heavily served by other modes. No way.
But the plan seems to be gaining traction. In my comments over the last few days, I have repeatedly pointed to the "service guidelines" and what insight they could give use to the planning process. Remember, these were guidelines that had to be fought for, as previously Metro's planning was driven by short term "long-term plans" with region by region restructures about once a decade (though NE Seattle was skipped, repeatedly, in every one of those processes, and other than a small restructure in 1998, has seen no effective network changes since the late 1970s). These processes were fraught with political influence, and often led to no changes at all.
Meanwhile, in exchange for adopting the "service guidelines" to make sure we had equitable service distribution throughout the county, the 40/40/20 plan went away. Thank goodness. However, with the city of Seattle taxing themselves through Prop 1 for in-city service, are we really seeing much gain in the city with the elimination of 40/40/20 and Metro's suddenly extremely political planning process?
A few months ago, I brought up (and was quickly raked over the coals for even questioning) the wisdom of using a huge chunk of the Prop 1 money solely for splitting the C/D. Given the opportunity cost of this spending, I didn't feel it was worthwhile. What I believe we are seeing right now, on both Capitol Hill and in the Rainier Valley, is an attitude that "we know you have a lot of cash for service, so serve us!"
This shows a huge appetite throughout the city for more transit service, everywhere, and all the time. The Prop 1 money was supposed to help with that, but we are about a cash in a huge chunk of it solely on the C/D split. Because of this decision, we are having a hard time "growing the pie" when it comes to Capitol Hill, and now Beacon Hill, Rainier, and Georgetown. The zero-sum games we thought we'd moved past with an infusion of cash are still here, and exacerbated by expectations of more service, when really, we've already spent a ton of it eliminating a historical through-route.
It is unreal that we are facing these decisions and tradeoffs. I appreciate the STB's role in daylighting the political players that are pushing for "worse than do nothing" plans for both the Rainier Valley and Capitol Hill. I don't know what the path out of this mess is, but very public, loud pressure on Metro would certainly help.
I have more thoughts on this, but will have to reserve them for later.
The C/D split was at the top of Metro's priorities. The only reason they were through-routed is Metro didn't have enough money from Transit Now to run them separately in the first place. Thus why they have two route letters instead of one. The need for more service in SLU is real: it has become part of downtown so most north-south routes need to go through it like they do when they overlap between Yesler and Stewart.
Brent White says:
If the goal of the C/D line split was to improve reliability, I think just adding more frequency would have done the job better. The D Line is Metro's new highest-ridership flagship line, and deserves its extra service hours. But if those hours merely get it to the stadia, but don't increase capacity, that would be a mistake.
The C Line is one of the few services adding to the SLUS' dismal frequency through way-underserved South Lake Union. It's ridership is far below the D Line's, but it has a neighborhood blog where people readily exaggerate how crowded that bus is. Some still seem to believe everyone is entitled to a seat.
But I very much welcome getting some new service into way-underserved South Lake Union. Politics seems to have heretofore starved SLU of any additional service.
Mike Orr –
We've been through this. The C/D split was an SDOT top priority, not a Metro one. Metro thought it would be nice to do. The extension to SLU was driven not by ridership or serving the neighborhood, but by the need for layover space. It is that extension to SLU that really jacked up the cost of the split.
Brent – I agree with the statement about adding more frequency. Splitting all through-routes through downtown because of "reliability" issues is a slippery slope. Not only do we not have enough money to do it whole scale, but we don't have the curb space to support it. Actual, meaningful improvements to help reliability are discussions we are avoiding (such as whether the road diets and bike-lanes-everywhere are actually hindering transit speed and the resiliency of our road network, as I believe they are) in favor of just "throwing money" at splitting the route.
Further, SLU has a streetcar. It cost quite a bit to build, and continues to cost quite a bit to operate. And it is totally underutilized. This blog has been through a huge list of the issues with the streetcar. None of them have been addressed by either the operator (Metro) or the owner (SDOT) who just so happens to control the intersections and the streets where the streetcar gets bogged down, making it a poor option for connecting to the rest of the city.
Maybe we should fix the infrastructure we have, rather than continue to spend operating dollars on it, and then use the "we have to connect SLU to Downtown" excuse as a reason for spending a *huge* amount of operating dollars in perpetuity to serve a need that could be met by our streetcar, but isn't.
About that South Lake Union Trolley/Streetcar….
It would help if there was clear signage and even a painted path from the southern terminus of the Streetcar to both the light rail & monorail.
Re C Line:
The issue is having 4-5 busses in a 20-30 minute window not be able to pick up any additional passengers (standing or sitting) during peak hours, in either direction. That's not exaggerated, it's a frequent experience for C-line riders–it happens to members of my household 2-3 times a week (they have other options besides C, so sometimes they don't even try), and luckily they don't have a scheduled start or end time for their job to they are flexible.
The issue is that it is seems to be one or the other, either capacity that attempts to matches demand for C-line riders, or issues with frequency and underservice through SLU. I cannot speak to SLU as I've never ridden Metro there, I'll take your word for it–I have lived in an area with poor frequency/service and it's really frustrating.
As a C Line rider, I gotta say I resent the idea that we are systematically waging a misinformation campaign. When I tweet to WSB or kcmetrobus that a C coach has left a dozen riders behind at 2nd & Columbia at 6pm before embarking on 99, I'm not making that up. I don't think everyone deserves their own seat, though I'm happy to honestly report that everyone does get their own seat heading downtown at noon. It could be that ridership is just especially peak-oriented on this route, so that yes, ridership is lower than the D Line, but still lots of folks are left behind at rush hour, and we get crushed by bus bunching upstream.
My #1 priority to fix the C Line would be rush hour-only short runs between downtown and the Junction. My ballpark estimate is that about 40% of rush hour riders are just going between those two destinations, so we could massively help that bottleneck by just pulling a few coaches off the long tail to White Center.
Ricky Courtney says:
The D Line is Metro's new highest-ridership flagship line
Unless things have changed drastically over the last few months, the E Line has the highest ridership of any Metro route with an average 13,700 weekday riders, according to the Metro 2014 Service Guidelines Report.
The D Line averages 11,000 weekday riders (4th highest) and the C Line averages 8,100 weekday riders (10th highest).
Brent, I normally agree with your comments… but you're dead wrong here. But this seems to be a common mindset amongst the STB commenters.
I rode a C Line westbound yesterday on the shoulder of the morning peak (we hit the West Seattle Bridge at 9:50 am) and it was packed.
I'm not talking about the West Seattle Blog level of packed (no seats available)… every seat was filled and every inch of floor space had someone standing.
That's not a rare occurrence and I understand that buses are frequently filled to capacity on the morning peak runs and are forced to skip the final stop along Avalon.
I invite anyone to come over to West Seattle on the C Line and check it out for yourselves. The growth over here has been explosive. In the Alaska Junction and Fauntleroy Triangle areas, at least 6 large apartment buildings (around 100 units each) have gone up over the last two years, with two more large apartment buildings scheduled to open in the next year.
EricL says:
It's an anecdote, but it's my most recent one. Rode the C line home yesterday, starting at 8pm in belltown. Bus was under half full when i got on. By the time we hit the last downtown stop heading to west seattle all the seats were full (ie, people sitting in them all, not one person per two seats) and there were at least 10 people standing. This is probably slightly higher use than i see on the average day at that hour, but didn't seem out of line with my general experience (sometimes a bit less crowded, sometimes more crowded)
I was thinking of the E Line, with its ridership close to double that of the C Line, when I was talking about the D Line. My bad.
The last time I got resented by a West Seattle commenter, it was because I supported straightening the C Line (which would help with the capacity issue), and daring to suggest a block of street parking be converted to transit lanes.
West Seattle: Your neighborhood transportation leaders are failing you, using transit pass-ups as an excuse to oppose more housing construction, and opposing making your transit trip faster.
Yes, there is an organized effort to make western West Seattle the squeaky wheel. And I don't blame those organizing that effort. They put out a good blog. But it does tend to skew the conversation to make West Seattle sound worse off than it is, compared to neighborhoods without such a blog, that suffer even worse crowding on their buses.
The political problem in West Seattle goes back a long way, to when route 120 got passed over for RapidRide treatment, because neighborhoods along the C Line had more money and political clout. Route 120 is still more crowded — all day — and still getting the short end of the political stick. You're welcome to ride it if you don't believe me.
I invite those feeling resentful to make a statistics-based case for parking on bus arterials and for the C Line being more crowded than other major bus routes, in particular route 120. Data is the key to getting more service when Metro sticks to its Service Guidelines. Transit lane priority also helps, so it is doubly annoying when self-proclaimed transportation leaders oppose transit-lane priority.
"The growth over here has been explosive. In the Alaska Junction and Fauntleroy Triangle areas, at least 6 large apartment buildings (around 100 units each) have gone up over the last two years, with two more large apartment buildings scheduled to open in the next year."
That sounds like just one five-block section of Capitol Hill, and the surrounding sections have the same. Ballard has also gotten a similar number of buildings as your description, and I hear there's construction in Lake City. So it's not like West Seattle had a special explosion. That's not to detract from the need for more runs on the C or higher-quality service, but when people talk about explosive growth in West Seattle it sounds a bit parochial. An east coast city would have had that level of development for a hundred years; what's unusual in West Seattle is how single-family it is just two blocks from the center.
RapidRider says:
Bus rapid transit lines that are through-routed through a downtown corridor without dedicated lanes should be considered DOA.
If the future Madison line is considered RapidRide+ and the E line is considered RapidRide, then the C/D in its current configuration should be considered RapidRide-.
Ben B. says:
This last planning process seems like a huge waste of time and resources when in the end they are just going to do whatever they want. This crap has to stop so thank you very calling them out.
As someone who rides the 124 in non-peak direction daily, I can tell you this is going to result in standing room only buses. That's not a bad thing but this route definitely needs more noon-peak service.
You betcha. Especially with a major tourist destination along the route and one terminus being the Tukwila International Boulevard Station light rail & bus station.
Ben B.,
If route 106 ends up leaving the tunnel as a result of this restructure, would you prefer to see route 124 take its place in the tunnel (which would probably not add any peak trips, but could conceivably involve more off-peak 124 service, making better use of the DSTT), or remain coupled with route 24?
Also, to you ever travel on route 60?
In the 2009 winter the 124 started to go in the tunnel then stopped. The louder crowd went away during that time. The 124 is a long route and many bus drivers do not want to accept that route because of the people that ride it and the length of the it. I wish the buses would come before 5 am for those of us who need to be somewhere at 5 am like work.
The tunnel is overcrowded. It still has times where it takes ten minutes to get into Westlake Station, and another ten minutes to get into University Street Station. We should be taking routes out of the tunnel, not putting new ones into it. All buses will have to leave the tunnel sometime in the next four years anyway.
If light rail critics ever fulfill their wish of creating an elected board to replace Sound Transit's appointed model … this kind of stupidity will expand exponentially on a grand regional scale.
Appointed boards value science over emotion.
It's the same politicians – just wearing two hats.
Board structure reform has always been a back-door approach for critics of a transit agency to try to re-stack it to their tastes, hoping they can derail it from its current mission. It is a passive-aggressive alternative to simply arguing over that mission.
That said, King County has ten slots on the ST Board. If those slots were populated by the Executive and the nine county councilmembers, that would hopefully put the complaints about this or that community being underrepresented to rest.
And now, back to the topic of this post, METRO's political problems…
The Sound Transit board is made up of elected officials (http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/Board-of-Directors/Board-members). Those elected officials (in general) don't know much about transit and ignore people that do when it comes to making decisions. They are neither experts, nor people directly elected to the board. They run for public office, but not as a member of a transit board. They aren't asked questions about transit, because it is a minor part of their job.
Things would be completely different if the board was directly elected (and paid for their services). When you elect someone for the port, you expect them to know a thing or two about port issues, and they answer questions about the port. The same thing would happen if we directly elected the Sound Transit board. You might get the occasional yahoo, but we have that now, and we have no easy way to get rid of him. Seriously, do you really think anyone will run against Dow Constantine because they are unhappy with the way he runs Metro or Sound Transit? Dream on. It will never even be an issue.
Well said RossB. At least directly electing to a transit board means direct accountability and emotional investment.
Well having elected officials run a transit agency can mean the same kinda antics….
Let's see what the e-mails and attachments say.
I'm all for directly electing transit advocates to boards. But I also worry about anti-transit folks getting in and filibustering or worse.
Bingo. And that is exactly why the rail critics want to change the ST governance structure — because they know that the current structure is working and they don't want it to.
It is much harder for politicians to meddle with minutia when you have an appointed board like ST has opposed to the set-up governing Metro. And of course when the R's ran their initiative to shrink the size of the KC Council it just made things like this worse.
Time to strengthen the firewall between planning and governance at Metro, but I'm not holding my breath. Metro seems to be too willing to accept the status quo and to listen to squeaky wheels, and to willing to accept unreliable, underperforming routes. In such an environment, it is just too easy for politicians to meddle at the expense of performance.
In what way is Sound Transit working? It has the same faults as Metro, only much more long lasting. Ridership on the Madison BRT will greatly exceed ridership on Link in the same area because Link only added one stop. They spent over ten times as much, and get less ridership. Ridership isn't everything, but holy smoke, it just doesn't work for the buses, because, again, there is only one stop! Metro's original restructure probably was better than what we have now, but in no way was it great. They were simply given too little to work with.
This continues in their planning right now. Dismissing NE 130th, having only a couple stations for Ballard to UW light rail and then you want to complain about Metro screwing up a restructure! No one in their right mine would ever say that a subway line to one small part of West Seattle should be a priority over other, cheaper and far more effective proposals (WSTT, Ballard to UW subway, Metro 8 subway). But suddenly that is a priority because … wait for it … the County Executive wants it! Not because he can point to an independent study suggesting that it should be a priority, but because he wants it.
Just to copy a bit of what I said below (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/04/metro-political-problem-georgetown-summit/#comment-663342) I don't think Constantine is an idiot. He just has a different skill set. He doesn't know squat about transit, and he thinks he does. He is never asked about transit. The next time he runs it won't be a huge issue. Do you think any of the newspaper writers will ask him detailed questions about Sound Transit or Metro routes? Of course not. The job involves running a public agency with a budget well over a billion dollars (and little of that money is spent on Metro transit).
I would love to elect the Sound Transit board (certainly the head) and I would expect to see those running answer pointed questions. Most of the folks running would be transportation experts, not managers. Jarrett Walker could be a great board chair for Sound Transit, but he would be unqualified to be the King County Executive. We will never get someone like the former and will be stuck with the latter unless we change the way people are appointed to the board.
You just made my case bringing up the lack of a Link station along Madison.
The First Hill Station was pushed by politicians and shot down by engineers who warned of great risk, cost and delay associated with deep bore mining at that site.
Those engineers used experience (challenges with Beacon Hill mining) to thwart the emotional response of politicians representing that area who could have cared less about science, because they partially pegged their re-election to delivering projects for their constituents.
What your directly elected board members "would know" about transportation is this: how to get re-elected every four years. As opposed to: what is best for the regional transit system.
"Most of the folks running would be transportation experts, not managers."
Because god knows, engineers make great schmoozers, fundraisers and political candidates
Madison Rapidride+ will carry more riders than U-Link? Thanks, made my day.
Na, you want a governance structure that is at least somewhat protected from political meddling and undue influence by squeaky wheels. If 130St made sense I am sure ST would build it, but at $50M and zero net riders gain? Na, the only way that station will happen is if a Metro style decision is made — squeaky wheels or politcal meddling winning out over data. Not impossible, but hopefully not likely.
And maybe we can take the $50M we save by not building 130th St and use if for a new rail only tunnel under 5th connecting Ballard to Redmond….
@Drew @10:47,
There might have been ways to mitigate some of the risk, but probably not with an economic case that closed.
Hey! I'm going to file a complaint! Not all engineers are socially inept. Some can actually smooze…
Martin H. Duke says:
Please bring this thread back on-topic to Metro.
The southern part of the new 106 should stay. I'm glad you're focusing solely on the part north of Mt Baker. Earlier complaints were directed against the route as a whole, saying it was resurrecting the 42, ignoring the risk that Metro might revert the entire route and lost the southern improvement too. The southern part is really the 142, a route that existed until 1990 when the DSTT opened and the 106 was created. At that time Rainier Valley was just starting to gentrify and the trickle of poor people to Skyway and Renton was just starting, so the need for a MLK-Renton route was not apparent then, but in retrospect breaking it was a mistake. And half-hourly service from Rainier Beach to Renton is hindering the ability of Link to serve Renton riders.
What does Georgetown need? Is a single frequent route on the 124's path sufficient? The 124 and 60 overlap with it somewhat but provide different paths out of it. Is the 106's path unnecessary?
The 9X appears to be redundant with Capitol Hill Station opening and the streetcar serving lower Broadway. Shouldn't it be reduced?
I only read complaints about having the new 106 extend from Mt Baker to downtown. I saw only support for running route 106 all the way from Renton TC to Mt Baker Station.
I'll have more to say later about the path of routes 60 and 124 through Georgetown. Neither do a good job of maximizing walkshed, serving the most important destinations in Georgetown, or keeping Georgetown from being a time sink for through riders.
What is happening to the 60? It appears to have disappeared on Beacon Hill and I'm not sure what is happening with the 60 on Capitol Hill. Is the portion from White Center to Georgetown still intact? Maybe that segment could be extended to SODO and riders could transfer to Link.
Brent: I agree wholeheartedly. I fully support combining the 38 and the south half of the 106.
GOBH: Neither this proposal nor the Cap Hill restructure affects the 60. For the moment it's staying exactly as is (although it got a frequency boost from Prop 1).
Guy,
The only place from which route 60 has disappeared is the VA parking lot. Feature, not bug.
It also had a stop consolidation a few years ago.
I just took the King County Metro Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/se-seattle2015
Registered my concern for the Museum of Flight & rider experience on Route 124, as much as I appreciate more frequency.
Seatown bus says:
Obviously this string of events has been disappointing, but it is difficult for Metro to stick the process when a certain Councilmember is bringing back the environment of distrust that existed before the guidelines. Please remember this when he is up for reelection. I am hopefully he addition of CM Kohl-Welles and Balducci will be able to reduce the power henia holding over Metro.
Dembrowski is the public face of the regression, for micromanaging the U-Link restructure for two particular areas. I'm not sure he's responsible for all the rest though.
He pushed through an amendment that will delay Metro's ability to move stops near UW Station closer to the station (thereby overriding Metro's traditional power to administratively move stops short distances). I can't figure out what the point of that was other than to sabotage the connections.
Believe it or not, the councilmember who is doing the most harm to Metro at this point is not Dembowski. Not by a long shot.
[ad hom]
Oddly enough, Dembowski's district is the place where a real restructure is happening.
Yes, and while Dembowski was not totally helpful I at least have to give him credit for listening enough to realize that torpedoing the restructure entirely would be a very bad idea. The same degree of listening is not happening elsewhere.
We have heard multiple rumors that the 106 extension to the International District is being driven by the King County Executive's office, not by Metro planners.
Thank God Sound Transit isn't run the same way. They have completely different management, headed by … oh wait, the same guy. Never mind.
I know some people object to the idea of directly electing the board, but I would prefer it. Constantine is not a transit expert (that's for damn sure). He has other concerns (managing the justice system, public health system and the budget that is dominated by the former). When he runs for reelection, transit issues (like Sound Transit's priorities or Metro restructures) will probably not even be an issue. I would never imagine a transportation expert would run for county council, let alone county executive. But people running for a public transportation board position would be asked for their level of expertise. We would have a lot of interesting questions to ask them and they would be expected to answer them. Questions like: Do you really think it is a good idea to have only a couple stops between the UW and Ballard if a subway is built between there? Does it make sense to spend huge amounts of money serving a very small part of West Seattle when there are areas that would likely benefit more from that sort of investment, like a Ballard to UW subway or Metro 8 subway?
Neither Dow nor anyone running for his job will ever be asked those questions, because simply running an agency with a budget over a billion dollars requires a very different skill set. I don't think Jarret Walker could run King County, but he could be a much better Sound Transit (or Metro) board chair.
The folks pushing for a directly elected board tend to be people like Kemper Freeman, Eymann, Niles, E. Wa legislators, etc. What does that tell you about how an elected board would work?
Regarding the number of stations between Ballard and UW, I don't think that will be an issue we get to debate for ST3. If you believe the Times, it will be Ballard-FW, WS-Everett, and Redmond-Everett. If you believe the Times…..
"What does that tell you about how an elected board would work?"
I would like an elected board that's committed to making transit work and have an emotional commitment to the agency's success.
@Joe,
I think you don't have anything like that with Metro, but that you are closer to having that with ST.
Just look at what Metro has been doing lately and it's pretty clear that they need some sort of a firewall to protect planning from meddling…It appears to be pretty hard to defend.
But we are talking buses here, they can always change their mind later….
Metro has a directly-elected board: The King County Council. Here we are, talking about the flaws in their governance of transit.
Brent, I see your point – however, however directly elected to me means only the transit agency and not parks, first responders, planning, roads, ET AL.
Depending on which of Metro's pages you are reading, route 124 is going to have trips added to replace the lost 106 trips, is just adding some peak trips, or is also adding some night trips (that page is internally inconsistent).
I've been promised a clarification in time for next Wednesday's public meeting on this proposal.
Everything I've heard indicates it's peak, peak-direction trips only. I think the "night" is because one of the new peak trips extends a bit beyond the peak.
Nothing I've seen or heard indicates any change in all-day 124 frequency. If Metro found the money to make the 124 run every 15 minutes all day, that would solve this particular problem entirely. (Then we could focus on moving it to Corson.)
Warren on Beacon says:
I looked at the 124 schedules. Apparently after 10pm everyday, the 124 goes to hourly frequency, so I assume KC Metro will up it 1/2 hour frequency between 10pm-1am daily to make it for the loss of the 106.
However, the route description sheets also say 124 only operates to 1am daily. There is night owl service on this route, so does that mean night owl service on the 124 is cut or not?
I haven't seen any indication that 124 frequency would be made half-hourly at night. I think 1am is a mistake — I haven't heard of any proposed change to the owl trips.
Would Corson get it out of the really narrow streets with traffic circles that slow the bus down? I saw the 124 on Carlton, and it really has to get out of there, front-door business stops or no.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many planners simply former bus drivers who have been promoted up to supervisor, then from there, to planning? Is there a requirement at Metro that transit planners have Urban Planning degrees?
Oran says:
You're thinking about schedulers, not service planners. Schedulers take instructions from the planners and create the actual timetables and work assignments for the drivers.
Service planners do need either a degree in planning/engineering and/or many years experience. The planners at Metro I know went to UW and took the same classes I took. Here's an example opening from Metro http://agency.governmentjobs.com/kingcounty/job_bulletin.cfm?JobID=1295779.
The "that needs to stop" position … so does that mean politicians and government employees would stop listing to the electorate, and so-called experts in a field would have complete autonomy and wouldn't be accountable to anyone?
On this one, you're kinda right Sam. There are reasons why when the folks speak up about transit, they need to be listened to.
Especially with requests for service……………
Kevin in Ballard says:
[cp whining]
Ballard. So prickly they torque all transit advocates off all the time.
To be clear, of course there is a major role for politicians (and the voters who elect them) in the process.
The role for politicians is to set service planning priorities. The Council wrote and enacted the Service Guidelines, and that was exactly the right thing for the Council to do. If they want to change the Service Guidelines, whether as a result of public demand or on their own initiative, that's great too. And they should hold the agency accountable for ensuring that agency decisions are in line with the law as expressed through the Service Guidelines and other laws governing the agency.
But what they shouldn't do is interfere in specific route-by-route decisions and force the agency to violate the guidelines on behalf of special interests. Doing that ends up benefiting the well-connected and the loud at the expense of all of the other voters, taxpayers, and riders in the county.
+1 David
These two paragraphs could be expanded into the next piece on this topic.
PeteyNice says:
Transit service is always a zero sum game. Restructures allow Metro to move around who has good service and who doesn't. Georgetown and Capitol Hill have enjoyed good service for a while. Now it is time for them to deal with poor service so Renton and NE Seattle can have good service. In 5-10 years maybe Metro will circle back around and provide those areas with good service again. But probably not unless someone from those areas gets elected to County Council and pushes for it.
It is a zero sum game, but every expert in the field will tell you that certain restructures will work out better overall, for more people, than others. Cancel the 41 and run a bus right from my house to my work and I come out ahead, but way more people come out behind. No one using available science would do that. This is napkin restructuring, which is not supported by the data, and not at all what a responsible expert would propose. That is the root of the problem. You have people in power ignoring the data, and proposing crap. This happens with Metro restructures as well as Sound Transit light rail lines (and their stations). It just so happens the same guy is head of both.
trivialex says:
A restructure may be zero-sum in terms of service hours. However, the point of a restructure is that the resulting improved (ideally) service level is decidedly NOT zero-sum. As we can see with this proposed change, restructures can be net-negative.
Thinking of routes, or trips, instead of riders, misses the point. Routes need riders to be of any use.
Routes need riders to be of any use.
Nope, routes can be parlayed into political support unrelated to ridership. Give politicians, none of which actually use transit, money to spend and guess what they'll choose… every time.
On this Bernie, I agree, "STB, We Have A Problem".
Politicians making policy with a total disconnect between transit users and their dais.
All the more reason to directly elect transit governing boards. Then you have a much better chance of that connection.
directly elect transit governing boards.
I'm not convinced that's a good idea. In King County we elect an appraiser. That's done nothing for the average Joe that sees assessed rates on residential property disproportionately foot the bill vs commercial property. The Port of Seattle elected officials are another example that I don't think says elected governance is effective or serves the public's best interest. I guess the old addage, "with democracy you get the government you deserve" comes into play. The electorate at large has no idea how the Port actually functions, I sure don't. I think in general there's even less knowledge about transit. To that end I could forward some wildly inaccurate points of view from both bus drivers and transit riders. I had one driver tell me in all seriousness that the problem was we didn't put in enough freeway lanes between Seattle and Marysville so that he could have an easy commute to work… uff da!
Under The Clouds says:
Didn't Metro have an independent board before being merged with the County sometime in the early '90s? I wonder if political interference was a problem pre-merger.
z7 says:
I, too, thought the 42 proposal was a joke.
On the application for the sounding board, the text states an intent to involve underrepresented groups in government: young people, women, people of color —
There is no better way to show these groups that involvement is useless, by having insiders unravel months of meetings.
I moved to Seattle three years ago and have, to wit, not missed a single election. Now I wonder what the use is.
I hope nobody in this city looks at metro's uneven service and says, "They should have participated!" We tried, and were ignored.
Nathanael says:
Yes. When you have a long public involvement process, come out with a proposal which is generally considered to be a decent compromise, and then *alter it behind closed doors*, people become absolutely disgusted with their unaccountable, corrupt government.
This is how you got the Deep Bore Tunnel and Bertha, by the way. Backroom shenanigans at the state legislature. I still don't know who was being bribed by whom, but they selected an option which had specifically been rejected as both too dangerous and totally ineffective by all the technical experts.
beebop says:
This problem runs deep.
An illegal PRIVATE bus run by Metro with no oversight.
Created at the behest of Gossett.
Ignoring all service guidlines.
Taking service away from the PUBLIC to provide an exclusive ride for a few.
CENTER PARK BUS is all the proof you need that politics is destroying the agency.
Al S. says:
King County has a population that is now so large that we no longer have personal accountability. Our county government was not structured for 2 million people.
Along with this, we will have 1/4 to 1/3 of all transit boardings in King County happening on ST in just 8 years. These kinds of issues are only going to get harder as Link expands.
Rather than change a board, we need to change the service planning oversight. It needs to have both operators and the cities and other agencies that own and stripe the road regularly working together. That suggests that service planning should get some sort of independent approval by a coordinated transit service commission where all governments affecting transit are represented. This commission needs financial authority to be effective, too.
There isn't an easy fix. Still, the culture of each agency acting mostly independently needs to change. That goes for staff as well as elected officials. The current culture of fiefdoms needs to be reformed.
Maybe merge all the transit agencies and hope to G*d we don't create a regional version of a Transit Congress stuck in gridlock and extortion?
I was thinking in going the other direction with this. How about each census tract get it's own bus (Lr, Med or Sm) and a driver. The neighborhood gets together once a year to give the driver his/her marching orders.
It may not be efficient, but it's certainly fair.
mic, well worth attempting.
Alex C says:
Tried that in NY State. It uh…it's not gone so well.
I'd add that we currently trust local jurisdictions to exclusively approve development agreements and most of the time these do little to nothing for transit. Letting Downtown Seattle developers build high-rises without major transit impact and mitigation as routine processes is terribly irresponsible! We are a dense world class city acting like we are a small town — with transit as almost an afterthought once we build.
Are you saying there is not enough transit service downtown?
Considering the long delays on 3rd and 4th Avenues almost every rush hour, I'd say that there is not enough good transit service downtown. Maybe Al's suggesting that developers be charged enough impact fees that we could build the WSTT and move buses down there? One way or another, we do definitely need to get a second tunnel.
Something like that William! The buildings planned today will open by 2025. When construction begins after 2025, the owners probably will complain that a 5th Avenue subway will hurt their building as well as extort money from ST if they need a station entrance. That's on top of us paying for a new transit tunnel to their building's front door. Then there is the need for more transit vehicles to handle tens of thousands of new employees and residents. Our system is completely backwards on high rise mitigations.
That's putting all the burden on the developers. The developers didn't create the population increase or jobs increase, they just follow it. We all need enough housing and offices and transit so we should all pay for the transit.
We went from 13 council districts to 9. Then we made the positions formally nonpartisan. If that doesn't work, maybe we need to just go back and forth between having a county manager, and not.
I would argue that representation should have more seats because we are more populous. Either that or have the legislature divide King County into three counties so that representation can be more responsive to local communities.
ronp says:
I think we need to always defend the planners, yes politics will always have an influence, and needs to be there. But rational analytical numbers need to drive the show and needs support 24/7.
People blaming road diets and protected bike lanes for transit slow downs need to get on board and support removing parking and general purpose lanes for transit. Point out with data where this has happened too.
So the deal is support dedicated transit lanes + protected bike lanes + wider sidewalks downtown and in urban villages. Do it always and forever.
"always defend the planners"
You got a crush on a transit planner, I see. No matter what, he/she is right?
Or am I just reading your intention crosswise?
Ok, sometimes there are bad/crazy planners and plans, but if they do their job of 1. service design standards, 2. performance measurement, and 3. service evaluation, the results will be better than random touchy feely political decision making.
Yes, hug a transit planner today (ask first).
Well put ronp, well put. You win. :-)
Metro has good planners, as you can see in their early proposals and when you talk to them about what they would like to do. The problem is that the planner' ideas get vetoed by management or the council due to squeaky wheels, or they self-censor out of fear of a veto.
Well then Mike, it's time we started being those squeaky wheels and got things done all up and down the Puget Sound. I already am one on the Skagit Transit CAC – ask me about it next open thread.
No, I'm serious – it's time to get tough with the politicians. We all have our anxieties with ST3 and are rather open about it. It's time to take our conversations here to the politicians and be that squeaky wheel.
When planners are all also required to be community relations specialists, and sent to neighborhood meetings without a security escort, they have earned their salaries.
Brent, I get e-mail notifications of every comment here. As such, I forwarded your comment to the Skagit Transit Planner who does just that. Joe
Ruby S. says:
If you want any changes, you should ask the City of Seattle to use their Prop 1 transit funds to contract with a provider that is not King County.
Those local funds do not have to go to the County.
He he, First Transit?
Follow in Sound Transit's lead and contract with Pierce Transit?
No, Community Transit contracts out with First Transit for a large amount of service then brands it as CT.
Great work, I'm glad we have journalists that will hold Metro accountable for stuff like this and shake them down for answers. If STB wasn't here this would probably go unnoticed.
I get the sense that this issue is particularly bad in Seattle. How is it that the logical and efficient bus networks of Vancouver, Portland, and San Francisco were designed but we can't seem to get one foot in front of the other before some loud mouth or politician somewhere sinks the whole thing? Is there really something intrinsically Seattle in the way we allocate authority that makes this so difficult for us?
It's been a major struggle in all of those cities just like it has here, with victories and setbacks. We just have to make sure the victories outnumber the setbacks.
Those cities have large 2-dimensional areas where it's easier to run grids, and there are more destinations on every grid street that generate demand for a bus. North Seattle has comparable geography but the dense nodes are scattered and far apart in a sea of low density (like Portland but unlike the others) so some grid lines just miss population centers where most people are going. Still, North Seattle's east-west service is underdeveloped and is only slowly being filled in.
Central Seattle and especially south and west Seattle are divided into small pockets by many barriers (hills, rivers, highways); too small for a proper grid to form or be useful. Rainier Valley is less than a mile across; Beacon Hill, Delridge, 16th SW, and 35th SW are less than a quarter mile across. This dissuades people from going between the pockets, from building businesses that attract people from surrounding pockets, or building any businesses at the edges of the pockets. The best we can do is link the urban villages together, which is what the largest ridership demand is.
Mark smith says:
Money is being spent. Why? Follow the money.
Clyde says:
I wonder if part of this is a communication failure. We've had a bus system for many decades, and the mantra has always been "one-seat good, two-seat bad." We're now shifting to a multi-modal system where two-seat rides will become much more common. Everybody working in transit, or with a strong interest in transit, gets this. But are we adequately preparing the region for this transition?
Transfer quality is another sore point: Metro has done a poor job of making transfers feel (or be) safe. A friend of mine was assaulted at a bus stop, where Metro's Trip Planner suggested transferring.
Metro can't just say "We provide the shelter, and the municipality provides the sidewalks and police protection."
Frequency helps (and would be a better investment for route 106 than sending it downtown). Real Time Arrival signage helps. Safety in numbers helps. Safe crossings help. But Metro's transfer culture has never evolved to the point that a multi-gender panel that includes people with expertise in crime prevention would look at a proposed transfer point and say, "I feel safe waiting for a bus/train/streetcar here."
Granted, this is a cultural failure within Metro itself, regardless of the political leadership. But when we can't sell the concept of transferring, we get garbage proposals like sending a bus downtown instead of having its downtown-bound riders transfer at a train station and its intermediate travelers hop on a frequently-arriving 7.
Idea: Bill the incremental cost of the 106 north of Mount Baker to the Seattle PD.
Might work?
What's the #1 complaint about making the 43 peak-only? The 8 is wildly unreliable, and it has large spans where it drops to 20 or 30 minutes, and even 15 minutes isn't a good transfer. That's not a showcase for ideal transfers. In Chicago, San Francisco, and Vancouver, grid routes run every 5-10 minutes daytime 15-20 minutes evenings, and 30 minute night owls (spaced a mile apart). Our daytime and evening service is around half that, and night owls much less.
The process hands ammunition freely to those who would paint transit as a sop to special interests and a waste of public money,
Lock and load. There are many people incensed over the waste that would otherwise be supportive of transit spending. Of course many/most are from the camp "more people using transit should mean congestion free roads for me".
rather than the core public infrastructure it is.
Correction, "it is" needs to be changed to "should be". I keep coming back to it but the only time Metro was able to make meaningful changes that addressed waste in the system was when they had a budget squeeze. As long as you keep feeding a pig it keeps getting fatter.
Those budget squeezes cause widespread loss of frequency, which make people driver more or lose mobility, and ridership suffers and people get used to not expecting transit to be there when they need it. That's a lot of negatives for just a couple consolidations, and it's a significant step backward in a city that's already far behind of where it should be on transit.
Ridership dropped because of the Great Recession long before Metro made any changes. By the time changes were actually implemented sales tax revenue had recovered to pre-recession levels. The 249 I ride lost 1 trip per day. Sorta sucked for me but ridership on that route has done nothing but continue to increase. Yet, not a word about restoring service; go figure. OTOH, the 236 which carries more HS students to Lk WA on it's first route of the day than it does on the rest of it's runs combined remains as is because money to burn returned before that part of the restructure was implemented. Sorry Metro, no soup for you!
Joe Szilagyi says:
It's been a day since this news broke. Any word or statement yet from Metro, their leaders, the Executive's office, or anyone on the KC Council?
Getting statements from agency's in response to posts after they have been published is not STB's modus operandi. We usual get in touch with agencies being posted about to get comment ahead of time. Sometimes, they take more than a day to respond, and we don't let their pace slow down our posting pace.
In this case, we asked Metro for comment regarding the specifics of route 124's proposed schedule and some of the process behind this proposal. We got clarification Monday that, David got it pretty close to correct. The politics is something we're going to go into more detail later, but, rest assured, Metro was given a heads up that we are covering this topic.
If we get something flat-out wrong, that's when we'll be sure to post updates and/or correction posts.
Sarajane Siegfriedt says:
The "no net inceease in ridership" for the N. 130th St. station is because this station would primarily serve the urban vllages of Lake City and Bitter Lake with a frequent connector, but the growth in these areas isn't counted by the formula. Despite is growth, Lake City will actually lose service when the UW staduim Light Rail opens and the 71-72-73 terminate there instead of downtown.
BTW, comments above about the use of developer impact fees are in error. The Growth Management Act of 1990 allows impact fees to be used for schools, parks, roads (not transit or sidewalks) and fire service. Period. Given that we are short hundreds of classrooms before we implement all-day kindergarten or lower class sizes, Seattle needs to pass impact fees like all the surrounding municipalities. We have a school construction emergency and our kids are sitting in overcrowded, aging and moldy portable classrooms.
Their logic also assumes that since no bus serves I-5 and 130th St. today, no bus ever will.
Pingback: 60, 124 Could Do More For Georgetown
Pingback: Changes to Metro's Strategic Plan and Service Guidelines
Previous PostPrevious How the 106 Downtown Extension Money Could Benefit a Lot More Riders
Next PostNext Sound Transit Presents ST3 Options


Download the Small Package Quotes extension.
Install the Small Package Quotes extension.
When you select a subscription package you will be presented with a registration form. The email address and password you enter will serve as your credentials to eniture.com. Use these to gain access to your customer dashboard where you can download your extension, manage your licenses and update your payment information.
When you download the extension installation file, be sure to save it to a familiar location. You will need to navigate to the file during the installation process.
Click on the Worldwide Express Small Package configuration widget located on the left side of the page.
Username The Speedship username issued to you by Worldwide Express. It is sometimes referred to as the Speedfreight username. It is the same username you use to login to Worldwide Express's online shipping application located at speedship.wwex.com.
When you're done save your connection settings and then test them by clicking on the Test Connection button at the bottom of the section. A message will display telling you if the a connection to the Worldwide Express servers was successful. If you receive an error, confirm the values you entered and try again. Be particularly attentive to capitalization. Most of the information you enter in this section is case sensitive.
Quote as Residential Delivery Choose whether or not the shipping estimates will include the residential delivery fee.
Now that the application settings have been established, it's time enter the product settings. Repeat these instructions for every product that you want to ship via Worldwide Express / UPS. Select Catalog > Manage Products from Magento Admin Panel menu. Locate the product on the list and choose it by clicking on it. You'll be delivered to the product's details page.


text:
Home > Entertainment > Zac Efron left Paris Jackson heartbroken
Zac Efron left Paris Jackson 'heartbroken'
Agencies22 March 2017 3:27 PM GMT
Actor Paris Jackson has revealed that she was left "heartbroken" by High School Musical star Zac Efron at a concert she attended. Paris, the daughter of late King of Pop Michael Jackson, was a huge fan of High School Musical franchise as a child.
She got devastated when she attended her first concert and learned that Efron would not be performing because he was working on another film project, reports dailymail.co.uk.
"The first concert that I actively wanted to see was High School Musical," Paris said on 'The Tonight Show' hosted by Jimmy Fallon. But her excitement soon turned to despair after she was informed Efron wouldn't be at the concert.
"It was the depressing part, heartbroken," she added. Efron had missed the gig because he was shooting The Derby Stallion, which was released in 2005.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
'Belief' and 'trust' are key for 1st-year coach Drew Valentine, who has guided No. 22 Loyola to a 10-game winning streak and its best start in 56 years
Marijuana edibles spurring rise in pot-related overdose calls to Illinois Poison Center — but number is lower than for other legal drugs
NFL draft preview: Safeties
By By Dan Pompei and Chicago Tribune reporter
Alabama's Mark Barron (4) is ecstatic after winning the BCS National Championship game. (Patrick Green/Cal Sport Media/Zuma Press)
Tenth in a series exploring the April 26-28 NFL draft. Next: Defensive ends.
There are more teams looking for safeties than there are desirable safeties in this draft. As a result, look for some to be drafted too high. Aside from Mark Barron, there aren't any safeties worth considering early in the draft and few worth considering before the late rounds.
1. Mark Barron,
Alabama, 6-1, 213. He is tough, smart and competitive and should be a fine leader in the secondary. He is very adept in run support, as he takes good angles and makes secure tackles. Barron has not been asked to cover a lot, and his coverage skills could be questioned. He reads the quarterback well and breaks on the ball. He is not a rare athlete and might be best positioned at strong safety. Barron played four seasons at Alabama and was named first-team All-America as a junior and senior. He recently had double hernia surgery but is not expected to be affected by it.
2. Harrison Smith,
Notre Dame, 6-2, 213. He is versatile enough to play free or strong safety. Smith shows good range and has ball skills, but he is leggy and has limitations in coverage. He is a hitter but only an average open-field tackler. Smith is a steady, consistent player. He sometimes plays a little out of control. Smith shows the leadership, toughness, intelligence and athleticism to be a solid NFL starter.
3. George Iloka,
Boise State, 6-3, 225. This tall, high-cut free safety prospect can cover a lot of ground. His strength is playing center field as opposed to trying to lock down an offensive player. Iloka is a smart defender who shows an understanding of the passing game. He is better in pass defense than run support.
4. Brandon Taylor,
[Most read in Sports] 'Belief' and 'trust' are key for 1st-year coach Drew Valentine, who has guided No. 22 Loyola to a 10-game winning streak and its best start in 56 years »
LSU, 5-11, 209. His stock has spiked in recent weeks after a strong Senior Bowl performance. Taylor made a lot of plays in the LSU secondary and was a three-year starter. He is more of a strong safety than free and is at his best in the box.
5. Brandon Hardin,
Oregon State, 6-3, 217. Hardin did not play in 2011 because of a broken shoulder, but in 2010 he showed an intriguing combination of size and speed. He is one of the more physically talented defensive backs in the draft, and he has considerable potential. He ran a 4.43 40-yard dash and vertical jumped 35½ inches at his pro day but might not play up to those numbers. He is not the most fluid athlete and will have problems changing direction. He has played cornerback, and some scouts believe he has the potential to be a big corner in a Cover-2 scheme. He has missed time with other injuries besides the broken shoulder.
6. Antonio Allen,
South Carolina, 6-1, 210. This is a tough, physical strong safety prospect who isn't the fastest or most athletic. He could struggle in space. Allen diagnoses properly, takes good angles, tackles well and makes a lot of plays. He should be a fine special teams addition.
7. Aaron Henry,
Wisconsin, 6-0, 208. Henry is a hitter who would be best utilized close to the line of scrimmage. The All-Big Ten choice is smart and competitive. He was not invited to the combine but vertical jumped 39½ inches at his pro day, which illustrates how explosive he can be.
8. Eddie Whitley,
Virginia Tech, 6-1, 192. He does not have ideal size, but if Whitley can add a few pounds, he has potential. He has the speed and athleticism to play free safety. He ran a 4.39 in the 40 to get the attention of scouts. He was around the ball a lot during the season.
9. Markelle Martin,
[Most read in Sports] 'Thorough, diligent and exhaustive': Inside the Chicago Bears' search for a new coach and GM — and why the ever-growing candidate list could be a concern »
Oklahoma State, 6-1, 207. He came into the season rated very highly by scouting services but did not play up to his rating. Martin has athleticism and has shown ball skills and toughness in the past. He is an inconsistent player. A knee issue clouds his stock. He also has missed time with other injuries.
10. Christian Thompson,
South Carolina State, 6-0, 211. This strong safety prospect has enough size and athleticism to play in the NFL. A transfer from Auburn, Thompson is being scrutinized for his off-field behavior.
11. Janzen Jackson,
McNeese State, 5-11, 188. He clearly has NFL talent, but a number of documented off-field issues could hurt Jackson's stock. A Tennessee transfer, Jackson plays pretty fast and plays the ball well. He can cover. His instincts and angles aren't always as accurate. He is a free safety who also has cornerback ability.
[Most read in Sports] Who will the Chicago Bears hire as their new coach and GM? Here's what to know about the searches — including the latest interviews. »
12. Sean Richardson,
Vanderbilt, 6-3, 216. A three-year starter, Richardson has size and athleticism, which he put on display at the combine. He is a downhill player who can put a lick on the ball carrier. Coverage is not a strength, as Richardson's long legs prevent him from making quick cuts.
13. Duke Ihenacho,
San Jose State, 6-0, 213. He is a tough, physical strong safety prospect with limited speed and athleticism. He is an effective run player who finds the ball well. He drew some attention with his performance at the East-West Shrine Game.
14. Delano Howell,
[Most read in Sports] Chicago Bears schedule a 2nd interview with Matt Eberflus, while Ed Dodds reportedly withdraws from the GM search. Here's the latest in the NFL's firing and hiring cycle. »
Stanford, 5-11, 210. Despite average size, he is tough and physical. Howell flies around the field and makes plays. He is not the most athletic player, and he sometimes makes mistakes of aggression.
15. Eddie Pleasant,
Oregon, 5-10, 211. He was a productive strong safety on an outstanding team. He reads the run well and gets to the ball carrier. He also shows instincts in coverage but is not the most athletic in the back half of the field.
16. Cyhl Quarles,
Wake Forest, 6-1, 213. This is a well-built prospect with some athleticism. He is a willing hitter but an inconsistent tackler. Quarles isn't the quickest in coverage and would be best utilized at strong safety.
[Most read in Sports] Yasmani Grandal and Tyler Flowers — the current and former Chicago White Sox catchers — are investing in the future of the position with a safety-minded equipment company »
17. Justin Bethel,
Presbyterian, 5-11, 200. He was a very good player at the FCS level, but he has to prove he can play with the big boys. His 39½-inch vertical jump at the combine got teams' notice. Bethel will take time to develop but should be a good special teams player while he's learning to play NFL defense.
18. Kelcie McCray,
Arkansas State, 6-2, 202. He has good size and can move at free safety. McCray doesn't always take the right angle, and he is not the most consistent tackler.
19. Jerron McMillian,
[Most read in Sports] The Chicago Bears interviewed Ran Carthon for their GM vacancy. Here's what to know about the San Francisco 49ers director of pro personnel. »
Maine, 5-11, 203. He worked out impressively and moved up the draft boards as a result. He had a very productive 2011 season. McMillian has a feel for coverage. He is a developmental prospect.
20. Winston Guy,
Kentucky, 6-1, 218. This is a box safety who is speed deficient. Guy is a hard hitter. He is around the ball a lot. He has played cornerback as well as a rover-type position.
21. Sean Cattouse,
California, 6-2, 211. He has the size it takes to mix it up in the running game. Cattouse lacks speed but has some athleticism. He came on late in the year but never played up to his potential.
[Most read in Sports] 7 Chicago Blackhawks games are rescheduled — 6 because of COVID postponements — starting Feb. 9 at the Edmonton Oilers »
22. Phillip Thomas,
Syracuse, 5-10, 198. He was a productive college player but is speed deficient and lacks ideal size. He has decent instincts and toughness. Thomas has some special teams potential.
23. Charles Mitchell,
[Most read in Sports] Les Grobstein, Chicago's sports encyclopedia and longtime radio host, dies at age 69 »
24. D.J. Campbell,
25. Trulon Henry,
26. Josh Bush,
27. Tramain Thomas,
28. Quinton Richardson,
29. Tony Dye,
30. Rodney McLeod,
31. Johnny Thomas,
32. Matt Daniels,
33. Jordan Morris-Bernstine,
34. Blake Gideon,
35. Robert Golden,
36. Brian Peters,
dpompei@tribune.com
Twitter @danpompei
Harrison Smith
Mark Barron
Janzen Jackson
Aaron Henry
George Iloka
Eddie Whitley
Antonio Allen
Markelle Martin
Latest Chicago Bears
The Chicago Bears interviewed Ran Carthon for their GM vacancy. Here's what to know about the San Francisco 49ers director of pro personnel.


text:
Q: Create FlinkSQL UDF with generic return type I would like to define function MAX_BY that takes value of type T and ordering parameter of type Number and returns max element from window according to ordering (of type T). I've tried
public class MaxBy<T> extends AggregateFunction<T, Tuple2<T, Number>> {

    @Override
    public T getValue(Tuple2<T, Number> tuple) {
        return tuple.f0;
    }

    @Override
    public Tuple2<T, Number> createAccumulator() {
        return Tuple2.of(null, 0L);
    }

    public void accumulate(Tuple2<T, Number> acc, T value, Number order) {
        if (order.doubleValue() > acc.f1.doubleValue()) {
            acc.f0 = value;
            acc.f1 = order;
        }
    }
}

but I cannot register such function using TableEnvironment.registerFunction. Underneath Flink uses TypeInformation to match types within SQL query and with such definition it cannot determine types (at least that's what I suppose). I saw that it is possible to provide several accumulate functions but still - I think return type must be same for each overloaded method.
Built-in aggregation functions work similarly to what I want to achieve - MAX can take arbitrary column type and return the same type. That's why I suppose I should be able to do it as well.

A: Unfortunately, Flink doesn't support aggregation functions with flexible return types. For the MAX function, the internal implementation defines the core logic independent of the the type and then creates an implementation for every supported type (see code).
Internally, MAX is then mapped to the right implementation, depending on the type.
I don't think that's possible if you define and register a function as user-defined aggregation function.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Ditched: A Love Story by Robin Mellom
"Awesome. I was a jealous lunatic...and I wasn't alone. Touchdown!"
THERE'S A GIRL.
Justina Griffith was never the girl who dreamed of going to prom. Designer dresses and strappy heels? Not her thing. That said, she never expected her best friend, Ian Clark, to ask her.
AND THERE'S A BOY.
Ian, who always passed her the baseball bat, handle first.
Ian, who knew exactly when she needed red licorice.
Ian, who promised her the most amazing night at prom.
THEN THERE'S A DITCH.
But when Justina is ditched, figuratively and literally, she must piece together--stain-by-stain on her thrift store dress--exactly how she ended up dateless...with only the help of some opinionated ladies at the 7-Eleven.
To get the whole story, Justina will have to face the boy who ditched her. Can losing out at her prom ultimately lead to finding true love?
From: Goodreads
I like the back-and-forth, non-linear style of this story. Though it's not what I usually prefer but I'm intrigued with stories that start at the end and then spend the entire novel explaining how things concluded that way. Another interesting thing is that the chapters where Justina is explaining the night before started because she was explaining how she got the different stains in her prom dress. Each stain tells a story and accounts for her ending up in a ditch without her phone, totally worse for wear and ditched by her friend and prom date, Ian. Kinda clever right?
The book is also fun. As Justina continues to figure out and tell Gilda and Donna what happened the other night, I find myself glued to her story too. Why did Ian really ditch her? How can he do that? What really happened during their prom night? The answers are slowly revealed and it appears that prom night has been absolutely crazy.
The minor characters are also likable. Gilda and Donna are good listeners. The Mikes and their dates are funny and someone Justina didn't imagine she would get close too but did. A "real" villain (which is actually translates to bitchy girl) is actually not present. The author just would like as to think that it is Allyson Moore but I think she's not really.
However, I think the weakest link in this story and the reason why I cannot like it more, is the protagonist herself: Justina Griffith. She's not the worst female lead I've seen but she's close. Although I'm interested in her story, I can't quite make myself empathize with her. There's just so many things wrong with her personality. She's too easy to jump on conclusions, she's too negative and pessimistic, she's a hypocrite and she's nasty! Wishing to throw a jar of herpes to a girl because your jealousy is eating you inside? Seriously. Grow up. Too bad Ian is seldom featured in this story so we didn't really get to know him well, but he seemed nice enough and I kinda feel bad that she's going to end up with a girl like Justina.
Let me break it down into two:
Pros - I like the way the story was told. I think the use of stains was very clever and I enjoyed it.
Cons - I dislike the main character. 'Nuff said.
*pic from Goodreads


Dan joined RNH in 1998 as Executive Director. He has over 30 years of business and management experience, including 20 years in the not-for-profit sector. He holds a B.S. from the University of Rochester and an M.B.A. from Western Connecticut State University's Ancell School of Business.
Nancy has led the Teen Program for more than 10 years and she oversees the operation and administration of the programs for children and teens from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Nancy has a B.S. in Community Health Education and an M.S. in Health Services Administration, as well as extensive experience in preventive health education.
Kristy holds a Bachelors Degree in Education and Psychology from the College of New Rochelle and a Masters Degree in Educational Leadership (Supervision and Administration) from Bank Street College of Education. She has worked as a classroom teacher, supervisor and staff developer in Early Childhood Programs, Head Start and most recently within the public school system. Kristy has also served as an Adjunct Professor in the Early Childhood Education Department at Westchester Community College.
Kathy joined the RNH staff over 20 years ago, first with the Early Childhood Program and then with the camp. She now manages the RNH Summer Pool Program. Kathy received a B.S. from Manhattan College and a Master's degree in Physical Education from Lehman College.
Lidia has worked at RNH since 1996 and has led much of our literacy enrichment efforts in the After School Program. Before becoming the Director of our OST Program, Lidia was the Youth Development Coordinator, providing guidance to teens and counselors in our programs. She has a Baccalaureate Degree from Lehman College.
Kathy, a graduate of Boston University, joined RNH in 1996 as a facilitator of our playgroup for two-year-olds. Over the next few years, she assisted in all of the classes, utilizing her experience with the three- and four-year-olds. In 2001, with the beginning of the Universal Pre-Kindergarten program, Kathy accepted the position of Early Childhood Coordinator, working in both the classroom and the office.


text:
Walter Tull: The First Black Officer To Lead White British Troops Into Battle
in Art, History & Culture, World Buzz
by How Africa News December 20, 2021, 10:14 am
Walter Tull was the first black officer in the British Army. He was also a professional footballer at the outbreak of the first world war.
ALSO READ: Africa Needs $9bn To Buy And Distribute 1.4bn Doses Of COVID-19 Vaccines - WHO
Tull was born on April 28, 1888, the son of a carpenter from Barbados. His father, Daniel Tull had arrived in Britain in 1876 and moved to Folkestone where he married a local woman. When he was just seven, his mother, Alice, died of breast cancer. Two years later, his father passed away of heart disease.
After the death of his parents, Tull and his brother Edward were taken in by an orphanage in Bethnal Green but kept in contact with the rest of their family back in Folkestone. However, his brother was adopted two years later by a Scottish family.
Growing up, Tull excelled at sports and went on to play for an amateur team Clapton FC. Within a few months, he had won winners' medals in the FA Amateur Cup, London County Amateur Cup, and London Senior Cup. In March 1909 the Football Star called him "the catch of the season."
He later joined the Tottenham Hotspur team and was subject to terrible racial abuse while traveling with the team.
His career with the Tottenham HotSpurs drifted following the racial abuse he suffered. However, his fortune begins looking up when Herbert Chapman signed him for Northampton Town in 1911 for a "substantial fee." He went on to play 110 games for the club before the outbreak of World War 1.
At the time Tull entered the military the regulations forbade "any negro or person of color" from being an officer, however, despite this Tull received his commission in May 1917; the first ever Black infantry officer to serve in the British Army. He returned to the conflict and served on the Italian Front from November 1917 to early March 1918.
On March 25, 1918, 2nd Lieutenant Tull was ordered to lead his men on an attack on the German trenches at Favreuil. Soon after entering No Mans Land, Tull was hit by a German bullet and fatally wounded. Tull was such a popular officer that several of his men made valiant efforts under heavy fire from German machine-guns to bring him back to the British trenches. He was awarded the British War and Victory Medal and recommended for a Military Cross.
Previous article Fred Perpall To Become The First Black President Of The United States Golf Association
Next article Ernest C. Withers: The Man Behind 60-Years of Iconic Black History Photos of the Segregated South
Meet Euan Lucie-Smith, Britain's First Black Army Officer
Who Was Frederick Augustus Hinton, An Early Advocate For Independent Black Presses?
More From: Art, History & Culture
ten − five =
Fred Perpall To Become The First Black President Of The United States Golf Association
Ernest C. Withers: The Man Behind 60-Years of Iconic Black History Photos of the Segregated South
Food Waste And Africa: The Way Out


#Ethereum's volume is less than 10% of #bitcoin's, instead of 50%. That's a large difference that will affect all eth based tokens as well.
#Ripple $XRP's volume is another 70% lower than Ethereum's.
A new bug found in Constantinople, again.
"A new bug in ethereum's Constantinople upgrade has been found at the last minute, with it affecting a limited number of smart contracts that utilize self-destruct."
Jason Carver, a developer at the Ethereum Foundation (EF), says a new feature called Create2 can allow a developer to replace the self-destructed contract and thus change the rules.
This could be a quiet attempt at resurrecting the Parity funds, still locked in a contract due to the self-destruction of a library.
A little economic comment on this mind-blowing hack with DNA.
I've always been uneasy about the price tag associated with these tests being so low. $50 US to sequence your DNA is uncorfartably cheap. They must be making money elsewhere.
As it turns out, they are. And this is the one we know about for sure, it's likely all are doing similar or worse things.
Packet switching is the technology behind internet.
Internet maximalists are toxic. There will obviously be multiple global packet switching standards.
The key to scaling global packet switching networks is right governence model.
Comparing lightning network to a base layer consensus mechanism is ignorant.
Proof of stake has been debunked many times over. Quick thread.
2/ PoS is a perpetual motion machine.
Money is not a shared illusion. It's a shared observation. We observe a thing is scarce and secure as it withstands attacks and remains robust and unaltered.
Perpetual motion machines are *not* Byzantine Fault Tolerant btw.
A real "dApp" is a very rare thing. So rare they can easily have their own names, like Bitcoin and Lightning Network.
As a idea, apps that label themselves dapps, is pretty funny.
Mainly, they call themselves dapps to excuse their lack of users and to confuse their investors. There are no dapps on ethereum, except maybe the erc20 contract itself I guess.
Can the altcoins handle the coming pain?
How many holders of last resort do they have?
Altcoins have built their networks on marketing and false narratives. Reinflating an altcoin bubble is without deliverables is going to be impossible.
Bitcoin delivers its value prop everyday. It delivers more valuable innovation all the time. It's network effects will continue expanding, while altcoins' will shrink to nothing.
The term "cryptoassets" (conveniently the title of Chris's book) is hugely detrimental to investors' understanding of digital scarcity and sustainable comp advs in this tech.
The term scam, however, is *under used*. Ripple is the #2 coin by market cap for God's sake.
The entire altcoin complex would benefit if people were less forgiving of the 99% that are outright scams.
It feels very similar to the coinbase "education" initiative, that just fills your head with buzzwords like blockchain and cryptoassets, then they try to sell you their scams coins, that have no competitive ad except for pumpers and shills.
People claim PoS is very superior to PoW, and cliam #ethereum has so much dev power, yet they can't pull off PoS after 4.5 years!?
#Ethereum no yet going PoS is a laughing stock. They know it's dumb. They know it will destroy the network. They don't want to exit their scam yet.
Trouble in paradise. 'Why can't you upgrade the 747 in flight faster!?' Not to mention the upgrade is theoretical at best.
Ethereum dependent apps are feeling major pain. They have near zero users and a network that can't scale. Plasma has stalled, PoS is scary, payroll due.
App/ICO/devs, why not take a look at @RSKsmart? It's an ethereum ported onto a layer 2 of bitcoin.
Tldr: Listening to #bitcoin maximalists would have saved your company $ billions, with not chasing blockchain magic.
Like I've said for yrs, central planners & their apologists couldn't bring themselves to admit sound money & crypto-anarchism were primary reasons behind Bitcoin's success. They had to attribute its success primarily to a technological leap, "blockchain".
#Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by a Texas district judge.
Eliminating the penalty for not having health insurance last year, now seen an invalidating the entirety of #Obamacare.
"In some ways, the question before the Court involves the intent of both the 2010 and 2017 Congresses. The former enacted the ACA. The latter sawed off the last leg it stood on."
Take this as a lesson politicians. If you want to be head of your political party, shutdown the government.
I have to say, if politicians had principles and this was real gridlock, it'd be fantastic. Less government x2.
Erik is trying to reappropriate the term maximalism, back to its original pejorative meaning of a non-thinking cultish brute. "loyal" and "desire" emotional responses, devoid of thought.
Maximalism however has changed to mean Bitcoin rationalism.
It's funny when people use Ethereum Maximalist, because the only defense is "let the market decide", "it's being worked on". Which of course, bitcoin maximalists totally approve of, even if our better, well-reasoned arguments don't penetrate the brainwashed blockchainers.
Bitcoin maximalists don't "desire a blockchain monoculture", however, I personally do desire people lie less about their projects.
Bitcoin maximalists predict convergence of money and communication protocols. I'm also a TCP/IP maximalist for many of the same reasons.
2/ It's quite weak to say, "most products won't be bought if people have a higher propensity to save," because that's admitting most products are only bought now because of inflation.
3/ Of course, that's not true for many items today. They are bought and/or consumed because they are productive in some way.
#Bitcoin will be spent on productive goods. No one can rationally claim that people would rather save than survive.
So goes the stupid hash war. Bcashers got tired of reality, I guess. Now they want to hide behind centralization and lies again.
The same people that didn't understand why bcash would fail in the first place, couldn't understand the arguments involved this time either.
Everyday is a hash war. Their toy networks got a taste of the real economics Bitcoin deals with daily.
And how did the ignorant bcashers deal with this dose of reality?
Let's see which altcoins change their networks in an attempt to save themselves, directly undermining any store of value potential.
Bitcoin's future value is dependent on its independence, lacking any central planner that can change it for marketing purposes. Bitcoin is different.
Its very value proposition is absolutely unchangeable fixed supply.
All the cries about bitcoin not being unique, simply one of 1900 coins, misses this fundamental fact, there's always a most robust consensus. Everything else is weaker than bitcoin, hence bitcoin will continue expanding its lead.
The only thing that makes the #bcash #bch drama exciting how centralized it is around a few key players, like Bitmain and their 1mil bch bags.
They'll do anything to pump those bags, but it's not real.
The most valuable #bcash fork would be the one that doesn't change, since long term value comes from long term confidence, not short term feature improvements.
The sum of the two *new networks*, rogercash + SVcash < original #bcash network.
Holding both forks is objectively worse than dumping the loser and buying the winner. And since it's so centralized, it should be easy to predict the winner.
Idiots thinking they'll double the total value by holding, will get relatively rekt.
1/ There was no second great bubble in the early internet protocol wars. Tcp/ip slowly won as the early enthusiasm of competing project lost steam, converged or died.
2/ Sure, there's some different dynamics at play in altcoins today, because they can literally print their own money. The timeframe might be different, but the efficiencies of converging on one standard of communication and value are so great, it will happen.
3/ Altcoins will lose steam, converge onto Bitcoin, or die. Like communication protocols before, there's no need for every use or every business idea to reinvent the wheel.
Beware of fast talking money managers and their narratives, especially about #bitcoin. Often the best read on the market comes from an insightful saver.
Longer timeframe trends trump single cycle targets.
The nature of the money trumps narratives from research data.
If a good is profitable to produce, an entrepreneur will make it, including what is used as money.
Examples, Venetians made West African glass beads, and New Spain's silver mines.
The value of a utility token can be viewed as that service's marginal revenue.
The marginal cost of forking the code or competing for that MR is near zero.
So eventually, the value of every utility token will approach MR = MC.
Features aren't scarce. 7 Minute Abs is genius, until some comes out with 6 Minute Abs.
Competing on features is the quickest way to obsolescence.
Btw, privacy is a feature that can be iterated and improved, too.
Two monies in an economy means twice as many prices to mentally manage.
Two monies in an economy also adds complicated conversions for simple economic calculations.
Two monies in an economy will also each have complex fundamentals in their own right, compounding difficulty of economic calculation.
$133M raise by the fiatcoin Basis already puts it very close to a top 50 coin.
Imagine all these #blockchain pilot programs we've seen in the last 2 years, switching $billions into fiatcoin projects.
Fiatcoins totally destroy the narrative of most legacy altcoin projects imo. As the "decentralized" and "blockchain" buzzwords die, most projects will simply fizzle out.
We could also see application specific Fiatcoins, as they try and reinvent the wheel for each project. It's going to get weird.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The food pyramid has destroyed the healthcare system in the US.
It's pretty simple, eat healthy food, have lower healthcare bills.
Since the US has no single strong ethnic diet infused with ancient knowledge, all diets went into the melting pot. Out came the standard American diet of processed imitation carb garbage.
This is what I refer to as *fiat food*.
Not only is it prescribed by government standards, it lacks nutritional value, and embodies high time preference.


text:
Ohio Administrative Code
3745 - Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Chapter 3745-501 - Licensing
Ohio Admin. Code 3745-501-40 - Suspension or revocation of a license
Current through all regulations passed and filed through September 3, 2021
(A) The licensing authority may suspend or revoke a license by order for any cause that would be grounds for suspension or revocation pursuant to Chapter 3714. or Chapter 3734. of the Revised Code and the rules adopted thereunder. Grounds include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Entry pursuant to applicable law to inspect or investigate, obtain samples, and examine or copy records to determine compliance is refused, hindered, or thwarted.
(2) The owner or operator violates Chapter 3714. or Chapter 3734. of the Revised Code and the rules adopted thereunder.
(3) The facility is not being operated in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws.
(4) A nuisance, fire hazard, or health hazard exists at the facility.
(5) For a solid waste facility, fraud Fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and other grounds pursuant to section 3714.101 or section 3734.45 of the Revised Code.
(B) Procedures for suspending a facility license. When suspending a facility license, the licensing authority shall do at least at a minimum the following:
(1) The director shall act in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapters 119., 3714., 3734., and 3745. of the Revised Code. The approved board of health shall act in accordance with section 3709.20 and 3709.21 of the Revised Code and the applicable provisions of Chapter Chapters 3714. and 3734. of the Revised Code.
(2) Unless an emergency exists requiring immediate action to protect public health or safety or the environment, make a suspension of a license effective only after the licensee has been given notice in writing of the conditions or violations that need to be corrected and has been given a reasonable period of time to respond to the notice to make corrections.
(3) Issue a written order to suspend the license that contains at a minimum the following information:
(a) Information identifying the licensee and the facility.
(b) The findings upon which the suspension is based.
(c) The effective date of the order.
(d) A notice of appeal rights.
(4) Retain and distribute copies of the order suspending the facility license pursuant to rule 3745-500-130 of the Administrative Code.
(C) Licensee procedures if a facility license has been suspended.
(1) The acceptance of solid waste, infectious waste, or C&DD at the facility shall cease upon the effective date of the order suspending the facility license, unless the order suspending the facility license provides otherwise.
(2) The owner or operator shall comply with the operational requirements specified in the applicable rules.
(3) The acceptance of solid waste, infectious waste, or C&DD shall not recommence unless the licensing authority has by order reinstated the facility license.
(D) Licensing authority procedures for reinstating a suspended facility license.
(1) The licensing authority shall reinstate a suspended facility license through issuance of a written order. The written order shall at a minimum contain the following information:
(b) The findings upon which the suspended license is reinstated.
(2) The licensing authority shall retain and distribute copies of the order reinstating the facility license pursuant to rule 3745-500-130 of the Administrative Code.
(E) Procedures for revoking a facility license. When revoking a facility license, the licensing authority shall comply with the applicable procedures set forth in rule 3745-500-120 of the Administrative Code.
Ohio Admin. Code 3745-501-40
Five Year Review (FYR) Dates: 11/27/2019 and 07/01/2025
Promulgated Under: 119.03
Statutory Authority: 3714.02, 3734.02, 3734.12
Rule Amplifies: 3714.02, 3734.02, 3734.07, 3734.09, 3734.12, 3734.44, 3734.45
Prior Effective Dates: 04/02/2012
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
§ 3745-501-40. Suspension or revocation of a license
(5) Fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and other grounds pursuant to section 3714.101 or section3734.45 of the Revised Code.
(B) Procedures for suspending a facility license. When suspending a facility license, the licensing authority shall do at a minimum the following:
(1) The director shall act in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapters 119., 3714., 3734., and 3745. of the Revised Code. The approved board of health shall act in accordance with section 3709.20and 3709.21 of the Revised Code and the applicable provisions of Chapters 3714. and 3734. of the Revised Code.
(1) The licensing authority shall reinstate a suspended facility license through issuance of a written order. The written order shall at a minimum contain the following :
(Effective: 7/1/2020 Five Year Review (FYR) Dates: 11/27/2019 and 07/01/2025 Promulgated Under: 119.03 Statutory Authority: 3714.02, 3734.02, 3734.12 Rule Amplifies: 3714.02, 3734.02, 3734.07, 3734.09, 3734.12, 3734.44, 3734.45 Prior Effective Dates: 04/02/2012)