To expand a bit on Andrew’s post yesterday, the three alternatives Community Transit is considering have basic philosophical differences:
- Alternative I preserves the current system, but running much less frequently.
- Alternative II restores Sunday service, at the price of even deeper frequency cuts to the existing network.
- The third alternative is the most interesting one: no Sunday service, but a total restructure of the route network to emphasize a few frequent corridors. Commuters into Seattle would generally have to transfer into a dramatically reduced number of Seattle-bound routes from new peak-only feeders.
The third option invokes a lot of the themes I like to emphasize: more direct routes, focus on key corridors, and a more gridded system. My first instinct to endorse Alternative III wholeheartedly. However, the key to a network that forces transfers is that the component routes have to be frequent. As far as I can tell, nothing but Swift will ever run more often that every 30 minutes, which I don’t think is frequent enough for this kind of thing.
If budget relief is on the horizon, then Alternative III is the best baseline from which to grow a better system, one based on the excellent long-range plan they published earlier this year. But if CT is going to be stuck in a rut of providing basic service for a while, then the answer is not clear to me.
It seems to me that CT has too much distance between population centers. It is hard to run a frequent, efficient system with so much distance between places. Having ridden the 112 and the 201 this morning, there were very few riders and most got on at the transit centers. CT should be practically doing everything to get light rail to Lynnwood as past as possible so it can feed to it.
Forced transfers can work well if they are “timed transfers”, ie the feeder bus is timed to work with the trunk bus. Sounder has time transfer feeder routes that are pretty well used. Reliability of routes is important for timed transfers to work well.
I think it would be good to know how many one-seat riders would now have to transfer to a feeder route. I’m guessing that CT’s commuter service is heavily dependent on P&Rs and if those P&Rs are along the trunk commuter route you might be able to make it work.
If feeder routes service can be provided by local routes than you increase ridership on the local routes and double leverage your service hours.
At Lynnwood and Ash Way, at least, buses running to Seattle in the morning are pretty frequent. If the trunk line left before your timed feeder arrived you wouldn’t have to wait very long for something else heading toward Seattle. I’m a reverse-commuter and have this situation going home — I might make a really tight connection but if I don’t the next bus will come by in 15 minutes. The regular commuters will have that plus all the commuter trunk lines.
On the way back home, though, you probably have to hold the true feeder buses until the trunk lines arrive, since the feeders aren’t on a regular and frequent schedule — maybe even hold some local buses that get a lot of distributor use, if only for a minute or two.
What is a one seat rider?
A rider who goes from their starting point to their destination on a single bus (one seat ride), as opposed to someone who has to transfer (two seat ride).
Cool, thank you!
CT has way too many one-seat commuter routes coming from all over the place. Alternative III has the best opportunity to leverage upon existing Seattle-bound services offered by ST. Lynnwood, Ash Way, and Mountlake Terrace all have frequent service.
How full are the commuter buses? I’m looking for statitics, not stories, since the majority of riders tend to experience the full buses.
To me, Alternative III’s proposed 196 route is really emblematic of the scheme, as it misses Lynnwood Transit Center by a quarter-mile to serve 196th St. and Alderwood Mall directly. It’s a funny step, as it’s going toward a gridded network but also away from the biggest transfer location in the area, an optimistic step envisioning the future of transit corridors in Snohomish County. So if Alternative III comes I’ll be watching the 196 route.
Really? From the Alternative 3 site:
And, of course, there’s the 510/511.
If the feeder routes have timed transfers with the trunk routes, then this could work very well.
I think Martin was referring there to the local service, which under Alternative III attempts to straighten meandering routes to move toward a grid of transit corridors. The current network of meandering routes (with at least some orientation to pulse scheduling at Lynnwood TC) might serve more trips more quickly if frequency is low. See the modification of route 120, for example.
Commuter service is a totally different animal. The Alternative III commuter changes are largely independent of the local service changes.
I was basing my reaction on these statements:
Looking through the alternatives, I see no announcement that Alternative III intends to force transfers for local routes, and lots of announcements that it intends to force transfers for commuter routes.
I think corridors with more than one route might have more frequent service (e.g. 115/116).
In Alt 3 the 201/202 are each at 30 min, but over most of the route they combine to provide 15 minute service just like today. Same for the 115/116 the combined portion is 15min and extended a little farther into Edmonds instead of just to EdCC- and that is all day in Alt 3, but in Alt 1 & 2 the midday headways on 115/116 are cut in half. Also there are a bunch of new overlaps like the 115/105 from Mill Creek Town Center to Mariner and peak hours the 106/105 from 180th St to Canyon Park on SR527, the 112/119 from MLT freeway station to SR99 (reverse commuters to premera/swedish?). + a few others where 2 routes could provide a better headway – or just end up running together right after each other – 113/119 on 148th, 412/101 between Mariner and Swift, 112/417 on 44th (and that 417 goes into LTC).
There are a number of corridors in Alternative III where two 30 minute frequency routes combine for 15 minute service. For example, the 115/116 on 164th St, the 115/105 on Hwy 525 north of 164th, and the 119/113 on 148th. Some peak only feeder routes would also augment all day local routes. For example, the 417 and 113 would both serve the Mukilteo Ferry and Hwy 527, with one ending at Lynnwood Transit Center and one ending at Ash Way. Different end points, but both locations would provide frequent commuter service to Seattle.
“For example, the 417 and 113 would both serve the Mukilteo Ferry and Hwy 527, with one ending at Lynnwood Transit Center and one ending at Ash Way. Different end points, but both locations would provide frequent commuter service to Seattle.”
This is the part I hate. In Alternative III, I will have to choose two different routes (one goes to Lynnwood P&R for Mukilteo feeder (417) or one goes to Ash Way P&R (113)) and pray that the one I choose will take me home earlier than another. In fact, Alternative III will be a really bad choice for people going to Mukilteo.
About where do you live, Andy, and what buses do you currently take?
I live close to Mukilteo Walgreen… My bus routes are really depending on the time of the day. I frequently take 113, 115/116, 201/202, 410, 414, 415, 417, 510. 511.
Under #3, 113 is local route, 417 would only run at peak times as it does now, Maybe more under #3. The other routes you take don’t serve muk, but the frequency would be better under #3 than the other options.
Going to Seattle you get the first bus and at whatever transit center it takes you to there will be a bus to seattle in a few minutes. Coming home you get the 511 and check your schedule to see whether the trip you are on matches up with the 417 at LTC or the 113 at Ash Way. pick the best one. What’s the problem?
Some elements of the plans ought to be independent of the options.
In particular, there is no financially justifiable reason to continue north county commuter routes south of Everett Station.
Plus, the number of commuter buses needs to roughly match ridership, regardless of the option number. Having too few runs to support existing ridership would be a terrible idea. Having too many is no longer affordable.
Additionally, I’m curious if CT has done stop re-spacing on any of the routes.
And one more idea: Pass a fare increase on just cash fares. I know CT has already eliminated paper transfers, but a premium fare for cash users would be an additional source of revenue, and further encouragement for everyone to get and use ORCA.
And one more revenue source: Charge for parking, especially at park&rides that require specialty stops.
There are still revenue sources and efficiencies to be found, if CT has the will to find them.
“In particular, there is no financially justifiable reason to continue north county commuter routes south of Everett Station.”
Please explain. Are you saying all north county commuter routes should feed sounder?
I would think they would have to as I believe the buses between Everett and Seattle are full (having ridden a few).
Indeed, that whole comment is quite a sweeping denunciation from someone who (as far as we know) doesn’t live there, doesn’t use those busses regularly and doesn’t seem to have access to ridership and performance statistics.
I’m referring to the 421, 422, and 425. Having these routes compete with Sounder rather than feed it seems like an incredible waste of precious money.
Bruce, do you have an argument as to why the commuter buses from Stanwood, Marysville, and Lake Stephens should go all the way to Seattle?
In the absence of personal experience or hard data, I have no firm opinion on the matter. I would have to know more about how full those busses currently are, what the origin and final destination of the riders typically is, what the transfer time penalty will be, and what the cost savings to the agency is.
Let me give an example. The bus from Stanwood (422) stops at Lynnwood TC before continuing to Seattle. Riders can change there and catch local services into Lynwood or other ST or CT services to the Eastside, U-District and Northgate among others. If a significant number of those riders are going somewhere other than downtown Seattle, then terminating the bus at Everett Sounder may not make sense. Are the riders doing that? I don’t know, I need data or at the very least a personal sense of the who rides that bus and where they’re likely to go.
Then maybe the Stanwood bus should terminate at Lynnwood.
in plan 3, the stanwood, marysville and lake stevens buses would terminate at LTC. Then frequent CT and ST buses to Seattle.
Not to mention there is already a route that goes from Stanwood to Everett to feed Sounder (Route 412C).
The Island Transit 412C isn’t timed well to serve as a Sounder connector.
http://islandtransit.org//routes.php/27/?mrnid=27
Its scheduled arrivals at Everett Station are 5:20, 6:20, 7:20, and 8:20 am. Sounder departs at 5:45, 6:15, 6:45, and 7:15 am.
I believe this route is free, as per IT policy.
.
The CT 421, 422, 425, and 821 all skip Everett (probably, in part, due to the time penalty navigating Everett streets to get to Everett Station) and head straight to Lynnwood P&R.
The CT 201, 203, and 280 have decent timing for connecting Sounder riders from Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Arlington, and Marysville. The 277 could be timed a lot better to help out.
Improving the timing of the IslandT 412C might be the best solution for Stanwood-to-Seattle commuters, and could absorb some of the ridership from the CT 421/422.
.
Giving CT riders from Marysville, Lake Stevens, and points north good Sounder-connecting routes, and having the rest of their commuter buses terminate at Lynnwood P&R might do the trick for maximizing filling seats on Sounder.
If CT does a sleight of hand and continues the 421/422/425 as 402s, they’d at least be able to charge a second fare, and thereby convert a few more passengers fumbling change into passengers tapping ORCA, since they don’t offer paper transfers.
(Indeed, as an aside, CT could renumber the local portion of all its commuter routes, charge a second fare for the express portion, and wipe out a lot of change fumbling. But I digress.)
.
The main thrust of my suggestion is to provide good connector buses to Sounder, provide service to other locations south of Everett where ridership demands it, and cut out the one-seat rides to downtown Seattle that compete with Sounder.
How would the picture change if Sounder ran 2 trains from/to Stanwood, and the other 2 north trains to/from Arlington (Assume a station would be needed in Arlington, Smokey Point & Marysville. Stanwood would use the new Amtrack station)
Please ignore for this discussion the point of who/how this extension of Sounder outside of ST boundries would be funded ;)
As for funding what would the 3 new Sounder stations cost, and how much would BNSF need to be paid for this?
Lor Scara
“what would the 3 new Sounder stations cost?”
Mukilteo Phase II — $11.1M
Edmonds Permanent Station — $12.9M
Tukwila Permanent Station — $16M
That’s only the ST budgeted amount. Tukwila station in particular has gotten some federal grants to help pay for it. You could say that the Stanwood stop could use the Amtrak station, but that didn’t work at Edmonds. Then, what will it take for track upgrades, layover space, bribes to BNSF, etc?
Though I don’t live in Snohomish County, it would be nice to see elements of Alternatives 2 (bare bones sunday service) and 3 (service restructuring) as part of the final plan.
I would be interested in seeing whah the cost/benefit breakdown would be for stopping all CT routes that head south of the Sno/King line at the first major transfer point south of the line, and forcing SnoCo commuters to transfer to Metro/ST routes at that point.
thinkg sto question
how many riders would be lost because they loose their 1 seat rides?
would Metro/ST have the capacity at thoes locations to facilitate thoes rides further south.
Lor Scara
About 8000 people ride CT’s commuter service to downtown Seattle each day, and another 3000 ride to the UW. Somehow I don’t think there is enough standing space on the 41 (for downtown) or 67 (for the UW) to accommodate all those riders. Alternatively, if you’re really serious about forcing people to transfer just south of the county line, perhaps you’re thinking that all Snohomish County commuters should have to use the 301/358 from Aurora Village to get to Seattle? If you look at alternative 3, you’ll see that CT is forcing a transfer to their own service at Lynnwood/Ash Way, fulfilling a similar function to what you propose while actually providing enough capacity to meet demand.
It’d be nice if Sound Transit could provide enough service to accommodate
Snohomish County commuters the way they do in Pierce County so that Community Transit could focus on local service. However, until light rail reaches Lynnwood, there’s no way that ST will have enough capacity for that.
Lynnwood sounds like a good place to transfer. It is simultaneously a destination, transfer to King County (downtown, UW, Nortgate?, Bothell?), and transfer to Snohomish County (Mukilteo, Edmonds, Edmonds CC, Mountlake Terrace). So a one-seat ride from Stanwood is justified on that basis.
Right now, the one-seat right from Stanwood to Everett fails to match up with Sounder departures. So, we really haven’t reached the point of even accommodating the riders who want a 1-seat ride to Sounder without a huge layover.
As it is, Stanwood riders are pretty much forced to choose the long bus route to Seattle.
In the absence of personal experience or hard data, I have no firm opinion on the matter. I would have to know more about how full those busses currently are, what the origin and final destination of the riders typically is, what the transfer time penalty will be, and what the cost savings to the agency is.
[spam?]