Community Transit Commuter Restructure in 2023

68 Replies to “Community Transit Commuter Restructure in 2023”

1. I would definitely be interested in seeing Swift extending to Link at 185th St. It is currently very difficult to get between the Swift corridor and most of Seattle.

   It would also be good if Mukilteo could get some sort of all-day service out of this that connects to Lynnwood in less than 45 minutes (a 15 drive, taking the direct route), and runs more than once an hour…

   For Everett, the goal should be a bus to meet every train. The bus should also continue to downtown Everett, so that Seattle->downtown Everett is not a 3-seat ride.

   There is zero reason for the Stanwood bus to slog through clogged traffic to downtown Seattle. It won’t be any faster for downtown riders, at least not during the hours that this bus actually runs. Whereas, a truncation will make it possible to connect to non-downtown destinations all over the Puget Sound area without backtracking. For instance, a commute to Northgate, the U-district, or even downtown Bellevue, would be much more direct, switching at Lynnwood. Another thing that might be worth looking into is adding Stanwood to the RailPlus program, since the under-used Amtrak station is already there, and trains are already serving it, anyway. The Amtrak could be useful for commuters who need to leave Seattle just a little bit too late to catch the bus.

   1. I thought Swift terminating at 185th was pretty much a done deal? Or at least it’s already in CT’s long term plan. The 185th station will included the needed layover space.

      Either way, I’d be very surprised if Swift isn’t extended

   2. Swift at 185th is virtually certain. CT’s long-range plan has more weight than these unofficial ideas. It sounds like the author asked CT how many service hours the commuter runs use but not how CT planned to reassign them or how certain CT is about that. That seems like a significant missing piece for predicting “What will happen in 2023?” and “How much can we influence it between now and then?” It’s possible there could be a temporary change in 2023 if CT is not ready to finish all its 2030 projects by then. That could give leeway for some express service as Daniel suggests, and then full implementation of the 2030 plan a few years later. Or the CT board could change its mind in the meantime, especially if demographic/trip patterns change, or if all-day Monroe-Bothell and Canyon Park-Bothell service become higher priorities.

      1. Just out of curiosity, why 185th? It seems like the best solutions would be:

         1) Extend the ‘E’ to Lynnwood, ending at either Edmonds CC, or turning and connecting to Lynnwood Transit Center.

         2) Have Swift cut over to Lynnwood Transit Center.

         Unlike Seattle, it really doesn’t get any less dense as you go north. From 145th on, it is roughly the same. Which means that there is really no reason to favor the southern section, yet this does exactly that. If I want to get from Seattle to north Lynnwood or south Everett along SR 99, the 185th street routing is significantly slower (I would assume). Doesn’t it make more sense to channel the most popular bus in Snohomish County to the most important station in the area?

      2. County line is probably the easiest answer. I don’t think Metro is interested in extending the E northward, so CT will extend Swift south. Also, 99 really isn’t that close to the TC. Swift already has strong ridership without being a good way to get to Seattle – cutting it in half at Lynnwood screws over all the riders who already use it as a way to get around Snohomish. Swift is intended to serve intra-county trips … it’s primary job is not a Link feeder.

         Long term, 196th will have bus lanes and there will be another SWIFT line along 196th all the way through Lynnwood from Edmonds to Hwy 527. Keeping Swift Blue on 99 makes for a better grid network – check out the future Swift network map and it will probably make more sense.

      3. >> 99 really isn’t that close to the TC

         It is the same distance (roughly a mile) as 185th. 220th is closer (about 4/5 of a mile) but they haven’t committed to a station there.

         >> Swift already has strong ridership without being a good way to get to Seattle

         No one is arguing otherwise. But if you are going to deviate from the grid — go off of SR 99 — why do so at 185th, not Lynnwood?

         >> cutting it in half at Lynnwood screws over all the riders who already use it as a way to get around Snohomish.

         Not “half”. More like 20%. But then the E is longer, so does it matter? Are the trips from the south end of the county to places north really that much more popular than to places south?

         >> County line is probably the easiest answer. I don’t think Metro is interested in extending the E northward, so CT will extend Swift south.

         Now you’ve found the answer. It has nothing to do with ridership, or logic, it is all about arbitrary boundaries. If only there was a transit organization dedicated to bridging those boundaries …

         But seriously, I know ST has no interest in this issue, even though it should. But there is no reason why Community Transit and Metro Transit can’t cooperate on this. It wouldn’t cost any more money. CT would just pay Metro for extending the E. If Metro ended it at either of the two spots I mentioned, it would likely be a *more* cost effective anchor then their current one. You would have to transfer if you were going from 236th to 256th, but you wouldn’t have to transfer if you are going from 175th to Edmonds CC. More to the point, to get from Lynnwood or Seattle to *most* of SR99 in Snohomish County (including the most densely populated parts) would be much faster.

         Put it this way — if this was all one giant county, would you connect Swift at 185th or Lynnwood TC? I would bet the latter.

      4. True, I think agency boundaries tip the decision to 185th. 185th has the benefit of not being an I5 access round, which should minimize traffic congestion, unlike 220th or 196th. 196th will have bus lanes, but serving Lynnwood TC overlaps with another SWIFT line, while serving 185th gives another stretch of Shoreline SWIFT level service it wouldn’t get otherwise (a perk for Metro, who might chip in for some Swift stations?).

         Only other thing I’d say is perhaps Shoreline is about as far as you’d expect someone to prefer a 1-seat seat over a transfer … it’s 45 minutes on the E from Shoreline, right? So that’s over an hour from Edmonds on an extended E-line, vs something shorter than that riding SWIFT to Link @ 185th

         Regardless, I do think it’s a good question to ask, and I’d be curious to hear what’s CT’s official answer is.

         I think if it was one giant county, I guess it would be a single line, though I’m not sure if that would be too long for one driver.

         And I disagree that ST isn’t interested – BRT along 99 all the way from Seattle to Everett is in the official long term plan map. My dream would be a future ST (or joint county) project that rebuilt 99 with center running bus lanes, and ST operated BRT the entire length of the corridor.

      5. A 185th St. transfer point means you can get to the parts of the Swift corridor, south of Lynnwood from the Link corridor in Seattle without having to backtrack. Also, a Lynnwood TC deviation would add about 15 minutes to the commute for every thru-rider, so it’s best to avoid this. With a Swift extension to 185th St., you can transfer to it from either Link or the E-line, and that seems best. Yes, the E-line will duplicate Swift for a mile, but it’s only one mile, and a fast-moving mile, at that.

      6. Ross,

         The idea is that you wouldn’t backtrack up to Lynnwood to come down to 185th in the end. I hate backtracking and adding travel time.

         What I have heard about Edmonds CC according to Bruce is that there isn’t enough layover space at the moment. It begs the question of if Route 405 should be a full time Mountlake Terrace to Edmonds CC route. It would be preferred to connect Lynnwood TC but given the roadway access I would rather keep the Aurora network rather than diversions to every transit center possible.

         I lost my train of thought after this but it gives a decent starting point and if it changes to all day express routes so be it! That is what this is meant to be! I simply wanted to sketch my thoughts out, what and why I am thinking of this way.

         It does lack FTN corridors but Swift likely will take care of them. The question is what other local routes need FTN that at the same time overservice areas? Is it then time to lobby areas for higher density.

      7. Ross, you’re being too Seattle-centric. Most people riding the Blue Line are riding intra-county. Extending to 185th is a “nice to have”, but relatively few Snohomans will ride it. There will already be plenty off cross-county routes that intersect Link farther north.

      8. >> 196th will have bus lanes, but serving Lynnwood TC overlaps with another SWIFT line

         Fair enough,* but for the distance involved I don’t see that as a problem. You could consider it a bonus, in that transfers would be easier. Another alternative would be to use 200th, which would put you a few blocks closer to Edmonds CC. You really don’t have to make any stops along the way, just connect to the northern terminus of Link. But your point about traffic makes sense, and may be the strongest argument for turning there (other than the obvious cross jurisdictional one).

         >> The idea is that you wouldn’t backtrack up to Lynnwood to come down to 185th in the end. I hate backtracking and adding travel time.

         Yeah, but that assumes that no other bus would connect up to Aurora. That won’t be the case. There are buses that connect the two corridors, and there will likely be more in the future. Of course that might mean a two seat ride — to say Aurora and NE 195th — and perhaps a less frequent bus, but that seems like a small price to pay.

         At the end of the day — except for the traffic issue — this just seems like a failure of agencies to cooperate. I understand why Swift extended their service a bit. No one has to sacrifice, and they get a bonus. It makes a lot of sense for the county. But 185th really isn’t a great choice. If your goal is extend the distance, yet connecting to the best bang for your buck, you would go to 145th (where there are a lot more people along with the tail end of another BRT line). A lot more people would then have a one seat ride to Snohomish County on SR 99. A trip from Bitter Lake to Edmonds Community College makes a lot of sense that way (as opposed to heading over and heading back).

         But the best spot to intersect Link is at it’s terminus. That means you take full advantage of the fastest service around. Not only that, but you pick up more destinations. Lynnwood TC is a destination by itself (that the city is trying to grow) and Edmonds CC is probably the biggest destination within miles. Not only would you have an easy way to get there via Link and Swift, but by the E as well. This would all be accomplished *for less money*. I know there are trade-offs, but I think folks are short changing both systems by taking this route. The current plan will be a huge, positive step, and make getting to the Echo Lake/Ballinger Lake part of 99 much faster. I just think a lot more people would save more time if they made that connection at Lynnwood instead.

         >> Ross, you’re being too Seattle-centric … Extending to 185th is a “nice to have”, but relatively few Snohomans will ride it.

         No, I’m looking at this from a regional standpoint. If Swift and the E were owned by ST, I just don’t think they would connect the northern half to 185th. They would connect it at Lynnwood TC. The alternative, of course, is simply to have the two agencies talk to each other, and make a network that works better for both.

         * Do you have a link to the future Swift Lines? I can see the blue and the green (and I know I’ve seen maps of the others) but I

   3. The key phrase here is “Service Change”. Metro normally does these six months ahead, with a concrete proposal and public comment period, and then an official proposal to the County Council, possible amendments by the council, and a final council vote. For the U-District restructure, Metro started a year ahead, with two initial proposals (a maximum and a minimum restructure), and two more rounds of drafts and comments, before submitting an official proposal to the council. Before the initial proposal, Metro was mum about what it would do. Until recently that kept us completely in the dark what kind of bus service we might expect from the stations, but now Metro’s LRP gives an outline of where Metro wants to go.

      I assume CT has a similar process, and it might wait until a year ahead (2022) to say anything beyond the LRP.

      There are arguments both ways on an early proposal (i.e., more than a year ahead). The pro argument is it gives people more certainty where they can move to and what kind of service to expect after 2021: which destinations will be directly accessible from their house and how frequently. The con argument is it gives several extended years for people to bitch about the proposal and badmouth the agency, and people might not be thinking as concretely so far ahead.

      However, the really top-level ideal would have been for Sound Transit in the 1990s to organize a comprehensive regional+local transit plan, inviting the agencies and cities to participate, with specific phases and goals. Then we could vote on “Phase 1”, “Phase 2”, etc, with more certainty about what the following phase would be and what the local service would be like. But ST didn’t. And it’s possible that the agencies, cities, and public are more urban-minded now than they were then, and that a comprehensive plan in the 1990s might have been worse than the current long-term plans (i.e., more highway based, commute based, less focused on walkability and frequency). Do you think the agencies and cities could pull off as good plans in the 1990s as they did in the 2010s?

      1. >> Do you think the agencies and cities could pull off as good plans in the 1990s as they did in the 2010s?

         Probably not. The early 90s were probably the low water mark for urbanization. Suburban office parks were peaking, and cities were “scary”.

         But I think the big weakness in general was to tie a major investment in transit to several counties, with the same taxing authority in each one. That was bound to result in the focus on distance, instead of efficiency. You could have made it work, but it would have taken much better leadership than we have had.

         There is a good reason to have a multi-county (or simply multi-jurisdictional) agency. We can see that with Swift and the E (which need to coordinate). But it shouldn’t be the *main* agency, the one proposing billions and billions of dollars in spending. It still boggles my mind that the same county that has a flagship BRT program — with off board payment and bus lanes galore — only has 15 minute frequency on it. If you can’t justify running that thing every 10 minutes (let along 6), then why do you think you need a train extending roughly the same distance (on a less populated corridor)? The simple answer you don’t, but because of the way things are setup, it was the simple thing to do.

      2. Swift has 12 minute frequencies because of the cuts in 2012. The Swift Green Line is planned to launch with 10 minute frequencies.

      3. I hope they’re also planning to restore 10-minute service on the existing (Blue) Line by then? It seems to me that’s going to stay more popular than the Green Line.

   4. I’ve always thought maybe 1 North Sounder run should extend to Starwood and possibly add a station in Marysville. I live in Mount Vernon and for a while I commuted to Seattle Daily and heard many others did too. I think that 1 run might do well

      1. As long as BNSF controls the tracks, that would be really, really expensive. As it is, north Sounder is subsidized by $32/boarding, and extending it would only make the numbers worse, as the market potential only goes down the further north you get. Also, the Sounder trains are stored in Everett, so any extension north of Everett would mean running the train completely empty in one direction, in order to have the ability to carry passengers the opposite direction.

      2. The state has studied commuter rail from Bellingham to Everett, transferring to Sounder. The counties haven’t shown sufficient interest in paying for it so it hasn’t gone anywhere.

         The ST district ends at Everett so someone else would have to pay to extend Sounder beyond that. There is an imbalance in the ST district: Marysville and Smokey Point, Snohomish and Monroe are out, as are Covington and Maple Valley, but similar parts of Pierce County are in: Sumner, Puyallup, Bonney Lake, Spanaway, Orting. And Marysville is fast-growing so maybe it was a mistake to leave it out. In that case the boundary might be extended in the future, but not all the way to Stanwood, just to Smokey Point.

         1. I wish there was a way for communities and counties to hold a referendum to opt-in to Sound Transit… I’d happily lead the Skagitonian YES campaign in the ST referendum.

      3. BY ALL OUR HOPES FOR LINK, KEEP SKAGIT FAR, FAR AWAY FROM SOUND TRANSIT UNTIL WE GET DIFFERENTIAL TAXATION ACROSS SUBAREAS!!!

         And to make things really certain, we’d need to let subareas plan and vote on their own projects too – don’t let suburban Pierce yank around the needed lines inside Seattle.

         1. William C;

            I’m all for excusing Pierce County from ST3.

            I don’t want LINK for Skagit. We’re not dense enough and too many Skagitonians would NEVER consider Skagit Transit which is anemic compared to sexy, muscle-bound Sound Transit (NOT a comment on employees at either agency, just service levels).

            No, what I want is frequent double tall bus connector services out of ST not funded by unreliable WSDOT grants. Also the same artwork ST uses spread around to be used by Skagitonians. I also want Skagitonian grads of Sound Transit University.

            One last thing – reactivating the Skagitonian rails would become a choice between coverage and rail. I’m not supporting that – and you know how I feel about Sound Transit, light rail and the ST Quarterback!

2. Are these draft proposals being considered by Community Transit as part of a public process? Does the author work for Community Transit? Or is this just brainstorming by someone interested in transit efficiencies?

   The answers to these questions should really be delineated at the top of this post in bold text.

   1. ZH

      I do not work for Community Transit. I happen to know Bruce who publishes on a semi regular basis here and took deep interest to what the network will look like in 2023. Honestly if it wasn’t for Bruce I couldn’t have had a better posting so I have to give him credit with his help on the map and an insider view from SnoCo.

      It is more of a brainstorming than anything given the variety of needs and desires for access and taking advantage of the Link extension.

      Thanks for the feedback!

      1. Cool. You have come to the right place for that :)

3. I still don’t understand why no Lynnwood Station – Paine Field route is planned. If this route is important enough to include in the Everett Link expansion in 2036, why is it not important enough to run a direct bus there, today?

   Swift Green Line, which will serve Paine Field, is still an extra transfer away, and will be until Everett Link is extended to at least 128th.

   1. An LTC to Boeing “tester” route is debuting this September. It’s peak directional only and will have limited trips. Check out CT’s website later this week or next for service change info. But indeed, Boeing is an important employer and is by-far the largest one that is desperately under-served. The Boeing area needs service akin to how Metro & ST serve Microsoft in Redmond, with ultra frequent peak runs and consistent all-day service. There are many employers in the area besides Boeing too.

      1. Boeing is fundamentally different from Microsoft. Programmers work odd schedules; airplane constructors do not. That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be some base level service for folks who have to make the occasional non-standard arrival or departure, but there are large peaks and very low valleys in commutation to and from Paine Field.

      2. Wouldn’t shift work be more conducive to transit, not less? Large peaks and low valleys pairs perfectly with peak only service.

         If I”m a programmer, I want large span of service in case I’m stuck at work late or have to go in earlier than usual. If I’m a shift worker, I know exactly when I’m leaving work so I only need a small window of bus service to match my commute.

         1. Well AJ I agree and so does Everett Transit which runs a Route 70 to link the Paine Field Boeing factory with the Mukilteo ferry terminal concurrent with Boeing factory shifts. Some of those runs are standing room only.

4. For Snohomish & Monroe –
   Splitting this route is absolutely right and long overdue. The current route isn’t a problem for Monroe, but for Snohomish it needless adds some 10 miles to the trip. There is also some great new service potential from such a split.

   Snohomish: The bus would travel from Snohomish down Highway 9 (the most direct route). A single stop in Clearview and Woodinville is much needed for Snohomish residents. It may also be worth considering rerouting to I-90 to serve downtown Bellevue, which would be a huge benefit for eastside and Snohomish residents. Whichever route is chosen, I’d say rebrand as Sound Transit 509.

   Monroe. I see two options: First option, send it to Sultan instead of Snohomish, giving Sultan a single bus to downtown Seattle. A second option is to extend ST route 522 to Monroe, probably about half the trips, essentially completing this bus line. This would also make the Monroe Fair a lot more accessible to transit.

   1. I very much like the idea of a Highway 9 bus. It should be an all-day route to Woodinville or (better) UW Bothell, maybe with a peak overlay.

      Both of the peak routes could go a number of places. Through-routing them with the 522 (incrementally paid for by Community Transit, like ST 595 to Gig Harbor is by Pierce Transit) to 145th/130th/Roosevelt Station is one option, or we could keep them going down 520 to UW Station or straight to downtown. Alternatively, I like the idea of sending them down 405 to transfer to Link at Bellevue. That should be fairly fast in the 405 HOT lanes, as well as giving riders direct access to Bellevue jobs and single-transfer access to Microsoft.

      1. No through route for the reasons Mike stated. But having all-day service along Highway 9 is certainly appropriate. Just terminate it at UW Bothell like you proposed. Folks will be able to travel to Lynnwood, Bellevue, or Link from there on high-quality services.

   2. The 522 is about to become BRT with buses every 10-15 minutes (I don’t know the exact frequency.) Extending some runs far into non-BRT and non-ST land would be difficult with keeping headways even, reliability, and brand confusion. It would be easier for a bus from Monroe to transfer to the BRT.

      PS. ST has said nothing about its BRT brand. Will it be RapidRide since both lines are within King County?

      1. Yeah look for CT to heavily leverage the 405 BRT station in Canyon Park as a transfer to East King, just as much as it will truncate at Link stations.

         The only future CT extension into East King that might happen would be service to UW Bothell, as that will be the terminus of 522 BRT … hopefully St and UW work together to build a really nice transfer & layover facility on/near campus.

         I believe CT wants to eventually extend the Green SWIFT line all the way to 522 in Bothell but wants Metro to pay for the needed service hours. I could also see bus coming in from 9/522 from the North/East do the same.

         If you look at the Future Swift Network Map, you’ll see gray lines crossing into King County in two spots – one for SWIFT blue to “I5” (i.e. Link), and another in Bothell, with both Swift Green and other bus routes terminating in King county.

   3. Here’s a link to the map future network map

      https://s3.amazonaws.com/stb-wp//srv/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/12224253/Future-Swift-Network-Map.pdf

      1. Thanks, AJ

   4. The tentative plan for 522 BRT extension is to extend it to Woodinville. Between downtown Bothell – UW Bothell – Woodinville, the route isn’t actually on 522.

      And express bus (ST or CT) from Monroe to Bothell that has good transfers to both 405 and 522 BRT lines would be great … but that would be a distinct route from the BRT route.

      1. *An express

      2. It could be a U-shaped route from Monroe to UW Bothell to Canyon Park. That would kill two birds with one stone until Swift can be extended to UW Bothell.

5. It’s great to be thinking ahead to 2023! Our transit world will be completely different, with two light rail lines offering high frequency to Lynnwood of only three to five minutes (at least at peak hours). Would more than a handful of people choose to ride a bus all the way from anywhere in Snohomish County knowing that the wait for a Downtown Seattle bus will be longer than the wait for a train? Should CT rethink where Seattle-bound routes will go that aren’t within easy walking distance of Link, Such as South Lake Union or First Hill? What are the implications of Link on Downtown Bellevue riders, and should CT shirt resources to the 405 corridor or not (what is the travel time from LTC to BTC on both bus and rail, for starters)? Should we be tweaking the station layouts now?

   The route planning process will be interesting to follow in coming years.

   1. 5-6 minutes will be available all day between Lynnwood and Intl Dist where the Red and Blue lines overlap. The “6 minutes” depends on whether ST downgrades current off-peak frequency from 10 to 12 minutes.

      The issue of Seattle peak expresses is where community input can make a difference. There may be an outcry from commuters to keep them or there may not. Either way a strong showing from Snohomans who want feeder frequency more than they want one-seat rides could make a difference.

      “Route 422/424 are special cases given their long distance travel patterns where truncation may lead to people simply giving up and driving rather than taking the bus.”

      The counterargument is that’s a huge number of service hours, and putting it into other routes in south Snohomish County could serve more people, possibly twice as many. And asdf2’s point about freeway unreliability is important. How often do people spend an extra half hour or hour on the freeway because the bus is caught in traffic or an accident, which won’t happen nearly as often with Link.

      1. Yeah I think the idea is you reinvest those service hours elsewhere in the network. CT burns a ton of service hours with empty buses going reverse-peak every day.

      2. I would agree that service hours would be better applied inside Snohomish County, enabling higher bus frequencies.

         Perhaps I’m not making my major observation clear enough: I think that Link will be so wonderfully frequent that most riders will gravitate to that rather than choose a periodic and less reliable and less smooth one-seat bus ride into and out of Downtown Seattle.

         The author advocates for truncation and all posters seem to agree — but eventually there will be some riders on some routes who won’t want to change and they must be convinced.

   2. Truncation makes the most sense. Lynnwood is a good terminus. Getting there from the north on I-5 is a piece of cake, and it is a destination (of sorts) as well. The only time a bus would be faster into town is when ridership can’t justify it. If you put that money into service, you are likely to get more riders and more people will save time overall.

6. Better to rethink the whole Snohomish County transit network in preparation for the arrival of Link in 2023, rather than tweaking routes here and there to connect with rail. The current miss-mash is terribly hard for riders to figure out, and far too many buses are running around almost empty. There’s got to be a better network out there.

   1. IIRC, they did a pretty big restructure during the recession searching for that better network. They just cover a lot of hard to serve areas, and there’s a lot of pressure to keep park-and-rides open for rural commuters.

   2. The route network is rather decent at splitting the difference between directness and serving destinations and pockets of density. I don’t think most of the local network needs rethinking until the completion of the Swift network around 2030, though even then it won’t look all that different from today in terms of corridors served.

      And most of those buses aren’t running all that empty, at least from my observations. There’s heavier flows between transit centers and destinations, strung together on routes between pockets of empty ridership. In the end, it averages out to decent ridership.

      1. Midday ridership on CT local routes is miniscule. I’ve ridden the 119 many times and never with more than 5 riders on the coach. Same with the 116, although I’ve ridden it less frequently.

7. 1. There should be a slow alternative for commuter in case there is an incident on Light Rail during rush hour. Like Metro #7 that serves much of MLK Way which is parallel with Light Rail.

   2. To consolidate routes to downtown Seattle, Community Transit should avoid buses on/off Stewart/Olive and use Cherry/5th or Pike street.

   1. The slow alternative would probably be the RapidRide E Line and Swift Blue Line. If Link does need to be shut down, a replacement bus running non-stop to Lynnwood would work, similar to the 402 today.

      After 2023, Community Transit intends to cut all service to downtown Seattle and instead rely on Link. Retaining service, for the most part, would be redundant and unwise financially.

      1. Unfortunate, Swift Blue Line does not serve Lynnwood Transit Center, nor Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station.

         So does Metro #7, it is a redundant to serve MLK way since it already has light rail.

      2. Rainier is an entirely different corridor than MLK, and still needs that local service. Retaining current service to and from Snohomish County on Interstate 5 is not needed because the buses don’t make intermediate stops (while Link would) and the service hours are needed elsewhere.

         While Swift doesn’t serve those stations, it does have good east-west transfers that travel to them. Just a matter of making it clear during a service interruption that there’s options.

   2. ” There should be a slow alternative for commuter in case there is an incident on Light Rail during rush hour.”

      If Link goes down, a local route won’t help. ST would run dedicated buses to replace in the event of an outage.

8. I’ve been reading this post a few times. I’m very happy at the idea of truncating Community Transit commuter routes at Lynnwood Link.

   1) I would sell this as trading a “transfer penalty” for schedule reliability. That’s huge being able to meet schedule obligations (e.g. appointments, work) in the Big Emerald City on-time. No more unSounder North, no more being stuck in traffic, et al.

   2) As far as Mukilteo goes, I would like to see maybe making Route 417 or 880 become at least an hourly deal from 0400 until 2200 Hours. Why? Because that route feeds into Paine Field and a major ferry terminal. Route 113 is circuitous to serve a lot of homes and the Mukilteo community. Circuitous to the point where when Mukilteo requested Route 113 have a change to serve the Mukilteo Park & Ride, Community Transit understandably said no and the rest is sad history :-(.

   3) I would like to see the 510/512 frequency bounced up. Frequent service to feed the light rail which is schedule reliable.

   4) I would go so far as selfishly pitch to Skagit Transit taking our 90X to Lynnwood Link Station… and I will pitch this during our strategic plan later this year.

   1. Routes 417 and 880, present day form, serve Hwy 525 rather than Airport Road. They’re useful for reaching Mukilteo residents and ferry traffic, but they’re really not useful for the bulk of people who work near Paine Field (who will be served by future Everett Link in 2036).

      There currently is no frequent service to that area today. There are a few commuter routes from further north to Boeing, and there’s King County Metro express route 952 (4x daily in each direction) from Auburn & East King that goes up Airport Road (intersecting with future link route at Ash Way), and that’s it. Swift Green Line will offer frequent service to Paine Field in 2019, but does not have any intersections with Lynnwood Link or ST 512, so a second transfer will still be necessary, unless it’s addressed in this restructure.

      1. Jay;

         Very true. I would add though there are several major Paine Field aviation attractions off of Hwy 525 in Historic Flight Foundation & Future of Flight. Also, there is a plan for a CT bus shuttle from the Jennifer Gregerson Multimodal Terminal over to Paine Field’s Seaway Transit Center via Future of Flight.

         I do believe very strongly that one of the problems facing this restructure is linking Lynnwood Link expeditiously to Swift Green Line (and therefore the upcoming Paine Field Commercial Terminal & Seaway Transit Center). That’s important.

      2. Improving frequency is the key, even with the transfer penalty. Its very nearly the only thing that keeps a transit system moving forward.

   2. Longer-distance freeway routes like your 90X to a high-frequency Link rail station are a great idea!

      Some case studies to look at from the Bay Area:

      Soltrans 80 and 78.
      Fairfield Transit 90 and 40.
      Napa VINE 29.
      San Joaquin 150.

      Some are wildly successful. Some have fares pay for most or all of the service. There are some frequency and service issues so they aren’t all great examples. Still ithe development history of each of these routes is a good resource on what to do and not to do.

9. Splitting the Monroe and Snohomish lines might make sense from the perspective that it cuts travel time for Snohomish travelers but deadheading all of the way to Monroe is costly. And the destinations served means it allows Snohomish riders a one seat long seat ride to Montlake. That’s the only commuter route which should be spared completely in my opinion.

   1. Monroe is something of a special case because there is no Link station that’s really “on the way”. So, maybe keeping the 424 intact makes sense. On the other hand, the all-day level of service to Monroe, and the highway 2 corridor in general really is horrible. It’s so bad that taking transit buses from Seattle to Monroe is no faster than taking BoltBus from Seattle all the way to Bellingham, and transit buses from Seattle to Gold Bar is no faster than taking BoltBus all the way from Seattle to Portland.

      This is the kind of service where even people who don’t already own cars will refuse to ride it if they can afford any alternative. For instance, the last time I need to visit Monroe (a couple months ago), I took a Car2Go and paid the all-day rate.

10. hed needs a verb dudes

11. I have some thoughts about the ST truncations. Here is the station data for the stops north of Lynnwood, as of the last service report. To keep it simple, I’ve only listed southbound ridership:

    Everett Station and 34th (510 and 512) — 1,183
    South Everett (510 and 512) — 460
    79th (513) — 36
    Eastmont (513) — 160
    Ash Way (511, 512) — 685

    So I can see why you want to just get of the 513 (which serves 79th and Eastmont). That is really low.

    South Everett ridership is decent and very easy to serve, so I think it makes sense for the Everett Station buses to continue to serve it on the way to Lynnwood. But I don’t think it is worth serving Ash Way. There are only a handful (about 30) people who go from Ash Way to Everett, and they can find other ways to get there. So I think it makes sense to get rid of the 512 and replace it with the 510 (truncated in Lynnwood). The 511 is no longer necessary (as you said).

    Back to the 513, I wonder if it makes sense as an infrequent “local”. Either as part of some other bus run, or by itself. So serve Eastmont, then South Everett, Ash Way and end at Lynnwood. This would add some more service to Ash Way, provide a connection for those headed north from Ash Way, and still provide some service for 79th and Eastmont.

    With truncations at Lynnwood, ST should have lots of extra service hours. The 510/512 runs fairly often right now. It would take only a little bit of money to make it a solid 10 minutes during rush hour, and 15 minutes during the day. So that leaves a lot of extra money, which I would put into a new run, mimicking the extension to Link. As mentioned above, there is no service that way right now.

    It would be pretty easy. Just run an express from Lynnwood to Mariner, then head up Airport Road. I would make a few stops along the way Airport Way (Aurora for sure). This would connect into Swift quite well, making it much faster to get from Seattle to the north end of SR 99. That is a three seat ride, but likely much faster than getting off at NE 185th, and thus provide a nice complement to that connection. I would bet that such a bus would have a lot better ridership than the 513

    1. Ash Way makes more sense as a Link terminus than as an “on-the-way” P&R remote from Link that doesn’t have direct-access ramps. The 201/202 stop at Ash Way, and also serve the office parks along Ash Way street. They can be augmented with whatever service is necessary, without the 512 having to be involved.

       1. I’m confused by your comment. I think you are agreeing with me, but I’m not sure. I agree completely that Ash Way is hard to serve “on the way”. So in terms of bus routes, just skip it. Everett, South Everett, Lynnwood should be the main ST route. The simplest way to do that is to kill off the 512, and put the service into the 510.

          I did also suggest trying to save the 513, by making it more of a local. So maybe that is what you meant. The 513 has low ridership, so my suggestion is that instead of killing it (a reasonable idea) we turn it into a local. So basically a local I-5 connector, instead of an express. Start at the same spot, go to Eastmont, then South Everett, Mariner, Ash Way (via the back way) and then Lynnwood. That doubles up service with the 201/202 where it probably could use it most (between the Mariner/Ash Way corridor and Lynnwood).

          I’m not sure if that is the way to go though. We could probably just keep it, since it isn’t costing that much in terms of service (it is commuter only). Still, less than 200 people for a bus with 11 trips means less than 20 people a bus — that is extremely low, especially for that distance (and that time of day). It is possible it will pick up, but I doubt it. Even though the transfer may be faster, it is a transfer. You do have other destinations (e. g. the UW) but because it is peak direction only, there is no value from the other direction (i. e. no one from Seattle would ride it, even though it connects to 99). So I really don’t see that bus being a very good value, but I’m not sure what to do for the people (200 or so) who are used to riding it. Ideas?

12. For the September 2017 service change CT is proposing the following:

    115 will be realigned to serve Mays Pond, 35th, 132nd and Silver Firs. To Edmonds it will begin at the same area as the 116 and follow the 412 path in the morning once it gets to 35th it will turn left at 35th, right onto 168th loop through Mays Pond right onto 180th right onto 180th and left onto 164th before heading to Aurora Village. Trip back to Silver Firs will be the opposite from 164th right onto bothell Everett hwy left onto 180th left into Mays Pond left onto 35th right onto 132nd then will follow the same path as the afternoon 412 before terminating at puget park/137th. (Assuming)

    105 Route would be extended north from Mariner P&R via Airport Rd to serve Paine Field, Boeing, Seaway Blvd & Hardeson Road. Extended trips would operate weekdays only from 5-8am and 1:45-6pm.

    106 Route would be identical to the 105 with the loop through Mays Pond being eliminated.

    107 is the new LTC-Boeing route that would travel down Hwy 525.

    277 would be eliminated Hwy 2 service to Boeing would be provided via extended trips on routes 270 & 271.

    1. Should be to Aurora Village not Edmonds.

13. I think we have a rather Cinderella view of how all these truncations would go.

    As a regular rider of the ST510, affectionally known as the “Sardine Ride,” I take the 04:30 or 05:10 out of South Everett. This gets me a regular speed limit ride of 25-30 minutes every day, but there are still people standing.

    Now start truncating all those people in Lynwood at 10 minute headways (ridership and ST510 is only going to grow in the coming years).

    Link had better have the same 10 minute headways with 4 cars to handle those 50-80+ 510 riders plus all these other rider’s routes during commute hours.

    Just transfer time can easily turn into extra 30 minutes when schedules don’t line up. Sounds like a big inconvenience. This is not a east coast express subway, it’s light rail and will be slower. You’ve just turned a lot of good commuters 30-45 minute ride into 60+ minutes.

    During the commute crush? This is probably acceptable, especially since downtown express exits get very clogged.

    I would hope ST to use sense when truncating and hold onto express routes when and where they make sense and don’t put all your eggs into the light rail truncation basket.

    1. Mark

       I had similar thoughts myself in the worry of penalizing people. Link is planned to have 4 minute headways during the rush hours. I would not want to have a 30 minute transfer at all, I would only want a 5 minute penalty at most, hence the idea of keeping frequencies to match and reduce wait times. I haven’t gotten into that nitty gritty all the way yet for potential timetables.

       During off-peak travel periods, Link will be faster from 11 am-7pm southbound most days given the Ship Canal-Northgate log jam that occurs frequently. I will look at that in a subsequent post although that isn’t on the priority list.

       Thanks for the feedback!

Comments are closed.