10 Replies to “ST October 2011 Schedule Book is Out”

  1. Sorry to be repetitive from a comment on a previous post, but I wanted to point out a de facto fare change, and thank ST for the change.

    Metro’s Access pass, which costs $45, will now cover all ST service as full fare. Previously, Access pass holders had to pay an extra $.25 for inter-county ST Express, and up to $1.00 extra for Sounder.

    King County Ferries already honors the Access pass as full fare (while regular RRFP holders have to pay more). None of the other agencies accept the Access pass yet.

    One of the goals in Metro’s fare consolitation report from 2009 was to increase the cost of rides on Access service to full adult fare, while allowing Access-qualified riders to ride fixed-route service for free. This makes a lot of sense from a taxpayer point of view. The only danger is that more people will apply to become Access riders because of the free-ride-on-fixed-routes benefit. But if they qualify, I say the regular bus service should be free for them.

    It would be wonderful, and a very humane thing to do, for all the agencies to put their heads together and create an all-agency paratransit pass that enables the riders in each others’ paratransit systems to ride the fixed routes freely throughout the combined service areas.

      1. Next, we’ll see if Metro took our advice to put a “service changes” alert on the relevant purple schedules. I’ve been using a bunch of blue schedules for which no service changes were listed in June, and it hasn’t been a problem.

        ST still has time to one-up Metro on its own web list of service changes.

  2. I’m mildly disappointed ST hasn’t extended the 512 to Saturdays. At the very least, I was hoping the 510 could serve Mountlake Terrace Station by now, at least on Saturdays.

    1. I’ve been wondering the same thing myself. From what I’ve seen the passenger loads are too much to simply cut half the buses and maintain existing headways – if ST tried tried to do it, the result would be severe overcrowing. But, if 510/511 every 30 minutes were replaced with 512 every 15-20 minutes, passengers should see a net improvement. Basically, it would be a wash for people going all the way to Everett and a huge win for everyone else. Furthermore, the option to take ST from Lynnwood to Everett makes a good mitigation for CT’s service cuts.

    2. The 510 not stopping at Montlake Terrace seems especially strange. I’ve rode by there a few times on the 511 and the time cost to serving that stop is really tiny – on the order or maybe 30 seconds or so. On the 520 corridor, every bus that goes by Montlake, Evergreen Point, and Yarrow Point serves all three stops to maintain the maximum frequency. I fail to see why the I-5 corridor treats things differently. 45th St. – ok, there’s one stoplight plus you can’t take the express lanes. But at Montlake Terrace, there is absolutely no reason why every bus going by there (including peak hour) can’t stop there.

    3. Part of the problem with lobbying for service changes is that we’re looking out for ridership that doesn’t yet exist, kinda like how we look at for residents who don’t yet live around light rail stations, but are being made to feel unwelcome by the homeowners in the neighborhood associations around the stations.

      The same goes for bike lanes on dangerous roads where cars break the speed limit as the rule rather than the exception (and go into a tizzy fit about how bikers break the law when they are told they’ll have to slow down to the speed limit). Why would they put bike lanes on a road like that, since very few bikers already use them?.. they argue.

      You see, there is no ridership between Lynnwood and Everett. But there are no routes between Lynnwood and Everett, you say? But why would there be, since there is zero ridership between Lynnwood and Everett.

    4. I looked at the 510 Saturday and 512 Sunday schedules last weekend, and the difference between them is just 3 minutes (at 10am northbound). So it would certainly make sense to combine the 510/511 for 15-minute headways. I’d like all of them to go to Everett, but even if half of them turn back at Lynnwood it would still be better than the status quo.

      The opposition to stopping routes comes more from cases where there’s a greater time difference. Like if the 194 had been extended to Tacoma rather than creating the 594, that would be a lot of tedious crawling in to P&Rs north of Federal Way. But since the north stops are more in-line with the freeway it’s not as big a deal if the 510 makes all of them. And because Lynnwood is the largest destination and transfer point between Seattle and Everett, it makes sense that all buses stop there. (The same could be said for the 594, if it were combined with the 577.)

Comments are closed.