Putting a commter route in service from points along Highway 9 north of the annexation to Woodinville doesn’t really make too much sense to me. Woodinville isn’t a big enough job center to warrant a commuter route from that area, and if Seattle was intended to be the final destination, this route would be essentially duplicating existing service in Snohomish (424) and Lake Stevens (425). North of the river there really isn’t any use for a route traveling along 9. It would have to run into the city of Snohomish for any practical use as there is virtually no place along the highway itself until about Frontier Village for pedestrian access. The point here is that I don’t see Highway 9 as a place in need of much commuter service in this area without the inclusion of Clearview and Maltby. The only route that makes sense to me using Highway 9 at all is a local route connecting Snohomish and Marysville via Lake Stevens; a route that previously existed prior to I-695 passing in 1999.

A local route from Snnohomish or Lake Stevens to Mill Creek would be interesting. I remember CT listing it in their six-year plan as a potential future route. I don’t know if there is a high enough demand to warrant this route’s existence either. It is true that Seattle Hill Road (and I assume Cathcart Way now that it is open) see a very high level of traffic, but most of those people are traveling to I-5, headed for points south in the morning, and returning home in the evening. Again here the 424 and 425 cover these Seattle commuters. That being said, if this route existed when I lived either in Silver Firs or DT Snohomish I would’ve used it every single day and I’m probably not alone, so maybe there is a high enough demand for hourly service. It also might be worth sending this route up Seattle Hill Road instead of Cathcart Way. There are a few neighborhoods at the top of the hill that could really use bus service.

As for what would have been done if this measure had passed; A route from Arlington or Lake Stevens to Woodinville via Snohomish, Clearview, and Maltby probably would’ve been pretty popular. A route from Lynnwood to Voodinville via Thrasher’s Corner and Maltby would probably be even more popular. The only major obstacle I see based on what I remember of the area is that it is pretty spread out and not made for pedestrian traffic at all. Thus, people would often have to walk more than a mile without sidewalks down poorly lit roads just to get to a bus stop. I think it would’ve been great if CT could have put in a Dial-A-Ride service in this area to transport people within the area and/or to transfer points along the other two routes. I guess it’ll be a few more years before we see any sort of transit in that area though. Oh well. Thank God I don’t live out there anymore.

If you go out to Tacoma and Everett, you might as well go out to North Bend, and at that point only the terrain and the voters are stopping you from going out to Snohomish and Monroe.

To the best of my knowledge, there was minimal activity for or against the PTBA.

If the For PTBA group would have advertised that the majority of people in the region being asked to be anexed already pay this tax on a majority of their purchases (most purchases by people living in this area occure in areas either already taxed by CT, or in King county), and if CT would have came out with a list before hand saying that if passed we will add the following services (30 minute, bydirectional service on hw9 and 522, 524 Thrashers corner to Maltby, Snohomish to Milcreek via Cathcart way, …) people would have known what they were voting for, and may have voted yes.

It would also be nice to see which precincts voted yes, and which voted no

Lor Scara

Seattle is outside the CT district yet it has very good CT commuter service

Well, of course. People in the CT district want to go to Seattle, so to serve them CT establishes bus service to enable commuting to Seattle. CT certainly doesn’t set up their service to allow easy commuting from Seattle into job centers in Snohomish County.

In terms of mythical regional BRT as opposed to steel-on-steel rail — well, that battle was fought and we won last Tuesday.

Keep in mind: the clowns at the Discovery Institute and the legislature-empowered regional transportation governance “reform” effort envision areas like this as the prime market for their future Cascadia empire. This vote illustrates just how idiotic the “grand plan” really is.

The purpose of bringing in anti-transit voters is WHAT exactly? To ensure the failure of transit?

I would be interested to hear from clueless Discovery Institute advocates like Rep. Deb Eddy – to figure out how she reconciles her ivory tower theories with harsh political reality…the kind of reality illustrated in this vote.

The Discovery Institute really needs to cut its transit policy arm losses, and return focus on fighting Darwin. Oh yeah…and building more roads.

Over the past three decades, Community Transit has grown from a small, local bus service into a leader in local and regional transportation. From a thriving vanpool program to the region’s first double decker bus and rapid transit line, Community Transit has been at the forefront of helping Snohomish County residents to think transit first.

Community Transit began service Oct. 4, 1976, after voters in Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway, Marysville and Snohomish agreed to form their own local transit agency. With 18 leased GMC buses, Community Transit began serving seven routes in those communities.

That first year, Community Transit buses provided 951,200 rides. As one long-time driver recalled, the agency didn’t have specific stops on routes back then. Drivers had to keep a sharp eye out for riders, who would flag down a passing bus.

Community Transit operates 33 local and 31 commuter bus routes and carries 57 percent of all Snohomish County-Seattle commuters to work and back. In 2007, Community Transit provided more than 10 million passenger rides, a record for the agency.

Growth has been a big part of Community Transit’s history. Since starting in the seven original communities, citizens in every city in the county except Everett have voted to join the agency: Monroe and Lake Stevens in 1977; Stanwood, Granite Falls, Mukilteo and Sultan in 1979; Arlington in 1980; Gold Bar, Index and Startup in 1981; Oso and Darrington in 1982; Mill Creek in 1983 and Bothell in 1992. In addition, Community Transit provides countywide commuter service into and out of Everett.

http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/ResultsByCountyMeasure.aspx?ElectionID=26&RaceID=101797&CountyCode=%20&JurisdictionTypeID=481&RaceTypeCode=M&ViewMode=Results

I agree with Matt the Engineer that transit can also fuel sprawl (though it depends a little on how you define sprawl). I think Paris offers a good model; the city and inner suburbs are served by the Metro, while the outer suburbs are served only by commuter rail. I think DC’s Metro goes too far into the suburbs, and while there fought various extensions (like the Green Line to BWI) that I think would be better served by commuter rail. Commuter rail won’t drive land use as much since it runs far less often; you need a schedule to use it and will be stuck waiting a good while if you miss a train, unlike light rail. For LRT, I think Everett, Tacoma, Redmond, and Issaquah are quite far enough. My focus for expanding light rail would be in the urban core, like the Kirkland-UW-Ballard-downtown-West Seattle-Burien-Renton route.