Thanks every bit helps..

I'm glad to see that Metro pays attention to the needs of most of its patrons. Unfortunately, the 265 and 262 riders have been pleading with Metro to add an all day combined route. This would help Metro's 265 and 262 patrons immensely. I personally have sent in a comment about this to Metro more than once and have yet to hear back from Metro. I have two complaints sitting on my desk waiting for someone from Metro to call me. I probably could complain everyday and not hear from Metro at all. Of course, I'm getting off the subject since I'm not supposed to use this blog forum to complain. I certainly hope I haven't misspelled any words. Anyway, bottom line, the patrons of 262 and 265 would like to hear some feedback about adding much needed all day service. Thanks.

How about adding some to the afternoon also. The times are to far apart between buses especially after 4:00 p.m. Standing in line a lot of riders said they were going back to the 214 because the buses come every 5 minutes. So if you don't reschedule more routes more frequently than you loose 217 riders back to 214 even though the 217 is closer. I don't like waiting 20-25 minutes for the next bus when I can ride the 214 and make that time up.

Kuddo's to Metro for listening to their customers and acting on it. With the surveys that were passed out this morning it seems that Metro is listening to their customers. While I agree with hubnkee1 that more frequent trips in the afternoon would be nice, I don't see how Metro could justify that. While all the morning buses that I have been on are full, I have yet to be on a full afternoon bus. They may be full later in the afternoon than when I ride. One thing I am curious about though, what did Metro base their numbers on to add the extra morning route. While myself and others have constantly seen and posted that the morning buses are full but Katrina Miesch, director of operations planning gave Mary the following quote "No trip has had 100 percent of the seats full" and I have yet to see a retraction to that statement. So based on that Metro doesn't think that the morning buses are full. While I beleive that Metro really is trying to make riders happy while maintaing some economic feasibility, it is this kind of perceived arrogance (or worse yet, percieved stupidity) that give Metro a negative image and cause people to complain about Metro. So keep up the good work Metro, we are going to work this through and make this route work for everyone. Let's just make sure we are all honest with each other, bad news and the good, if we make a mistake lets admit it and move on from there. And while I am writing, I do have one question for Metro. What is the reason the 219 does not go all the way to Cypress? If it is a cost issue to make scheduled trips (which I could easily understand,) why not make it part of the gauranteed ride home program and make the route available if there is someone who needs to ride it. Just my 2cents worth.

For those of us who have stopped utilizing your service and have returned to using the service at 214 due to various posted reasons, how can we obtain a copy of this customer survey to help you "evaluate the service, ways it can be improved, and satisfaction with the route"?

I agree with hubnkee1 about adding more afternoon times. I transfer from the 286/33 from the Galleria area and have had to wait a 20 to 30 min regularly at the transit center (and have been driving or continuing to ride the 286 because of it). I rode Thursday specifically to get the survey. I would also like to make a formal request to have the 286 route extended to the HP/Cypress lot so the Galleria would have better/direct service. Metro currently has 4 routes (214, 216, 217, 219) operating from 4 transit centers along 290 (Pinemont/W. Little York, West Rd, HP/Cypress) serving downtown and only have 1 route (286) out of 1 center (W. Little York) serving the galleria area. To simplify the schedule I would even suggest keeping the currently scheduled times for the 286 at W. Little York, and schedule departures from the HP/Cypress lot to facilitate current departure times from W. Little York. Thanks.

I'm METRO's Manager of Strategic Analysis, and the 217 HP/Cypress survey is one of my projects. (In fact, I was one of the employees handing out surveys Thursday morning.) The survey was intended to measure the opinions of _current_ 217 HP/Cypress riders. We've gotten a great response so far; 68% of riders returned their surveys on the bus, and I expect to see more surveys arrive via mail next week. (The surveys had a postage-paid mailback panel on the back.) As I’ve been coding responses to the open-ended question, “What can METRO do to improve your satisfaction with the 217 HP/Cypress?” I’ve seen that all of the concerns raised on the blog about this route have been mentioned. We'll post survey results on the blog next week.

Actually, adding more Uptown stops along the 290 route would be a great idea! And there is only one transit center along the route: Northwest! But on the 290 Corridor there are 5 Park and ride lots: Northwest TC Pinemont W Little York NW Station HP/Cypress

I was asked to post this here :) 108-Seton Lake Route Could Really Use a 3:00 Outbound from downtown , the 3:15 + bus is pretty packed by the time I get on , woulb be nice , all you would need to do is rename the 108 to north shepard 108A - North Shepard 3:00 108B - Seton Lake 3:05

Julie Fernandez/Mary, Is there a way I could get a copy of the 217 survey. I sure would like to pass on my comments. After using the 217 service for about two plus weeks, I have now reverted back to the 214 service for a variety of reasons....the most important being the commute time from the 217 parking lot to the HOV enterance on 290. Thanks,