New Swift Green Line Stations and Queue Jumps Going Up in Everett

42 Replies to “New Swift Green Line Stations and Queue Jumps Going Up in Everett”

1. Ideally, the Green Line would make a great feeder for express buses down I-5 to Seattle – if it weren’t for the fact that they decided to route the line at a street that doesn’t intersect any of the stops.

   Could the Green Line not have been modified to cross I-5 at 164th? Or 112th? Somewhere that actually connects to the 512?

   1. CT is thinking about extending the green line to University of Washington Bothell, where it will connect with the 522. But by the time that happens, 522 will most likely terminate at 145th Link Station.

   2. 164th is very congested an fitting bus priority would be expensive and politically difficult. Not to mention that Ash Way would require a bit of a diversion into the transit center that would kill a lot of time for thru riders.

      112th is pretty quiet and would make more sense, but it doesn’t connect to local CT service like Mariner does. The connection to 201/202 in particular is key, since it provides faster service to Everett Station and Lynnwood TC.

      1. Once the green line is in operation, the one with 5 will provide redundant service along 128th Street. I think it will provide a good opportunity for the 105 to extend all the way north along SR527 and into the South Everett Freeway Station. Personally, I’d like to see it go all the way to Mukilteo. Right now, there’s poor service between Mukilteo and South everett and Bothell.

      2. Serving Ash Way P&R doesn’t *have* to mean actually leaving the street and looping through the bus bays. It could me simply stopping along Ash Way on the street.

      3. Route 105 will provide underlying local service just like Route 101 does today, so I think it would need to at least run to Mariner and have an Everett Transit route that uses Airport Road, 128th/132nd, then loops back to South Everett via SR 527 and 112th.

         As for the Ash Way stop, I would not be looking forward to the walk between the bus bays and 164th, especially if heading eastbound. The Orange Line will have to address that when it’s built.

   3. UW Bothell is an unfunded extension at this point.

      1. That is indeed the case. The green line will not terminate there per the current plans.

      2. Which college used to have an extension at Everett Station? And why isn’t it there anymore?

         MD

   4. The corridor study was conducted back in 2014. Unfortunately I don’t believe that info is archived online. You’d have to request it from CT.

      Here’s some info from their blog announcing their decision to move forward with the Swift II line as it was called then.

      http://communitytransit.blogspot.com/2014/12/swift-ii-and-beyond.html?m=1

      1. You can pull the old documents using the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, like so.

      2. Bruce E. Yup, the Wayback Machine is a great tool. I gave it a go to find the 2014 report you provided the link for above but I was unsucessful at retrieving it. Most likely, operator error. Lol. Thanks for the direct link!

   5. They chose to put the line where the people are. You can see that on either the census maps or satellite maps. The highest population density in Snohomish County is right along that corridor, between SR 99 and the freeway. SR 527 isn’t as high density, but a reasonable choice for a north-south run connecting to Bothell. There are some apartments fairly close to the highway.

      This will not connect to the 512, but that becomes a moot issue once Link gets to Lynnwood (a couple years after this opens). There will be modifications to the network (of course) but even the existing routing would be fine. The 201/202 runs quite often between Lynnwood and 128th (via Ash Way).

      Personally, I would split the 512, just as the rush hour buses are broken up (the 510 stops at South Everett, while the 511 serves Lynnwood and Ash Way). So basically run a truncated 510 and a truncated 511 all day long (and put the 512 to bed). Except instead of ending the 511 at the Ash Way Park and Ride, I would extend it up Ash Way/4th up past 128th. I would send it north of 128th (on 4th) by the high school and middle school, ending close to cluster of apartments there. That would mean extra coverage of a relatively dense area along with service to the middle and high school. All for a route that is about 15 minutes long (outside of rush hour). Google map doesn’t allow you to pretend you’re a bus, but this is basically the route: https://goo.gl/maps/jsvbNPGHd2q.

      That would then free up Ash Way — you wouldn’t need to send so many Community Service buses there. So that means buses like the 109, 201, 202 avoid Ash way. In the case of the 109, it gets on the freeway at 128th. In the case of the 201 and 202, it just stays on the freeway until Lynnwood, saving a considerable amount of time. Fairly simple, really.

      1. I think you got the details right except for the timing of Swift green line and Lynnwood Link. The former is scheduled to begin operating in early 2019 while the latter, with any luck, won’t come to fruition until five years later.

      2. There are a lot of apartments on the Bothell-Everett Highway. They are towers-in-the-park and don’t win any walkability awards, but they are apartments.

         Yes, there’s a gap between Swift Green, Lynnwood Link, and Mariner Station, but Swift is mainly for Snohomish County residents making trips within the county, and especially to connect the housing in between to Boeing and Canyon Park.

      3. The good news is that ST3 does indeed fund a Link station at 128th, so when it finally opens, all the problems of how the Green Line connects to the regional spine get solved. The bad news is that’s not happening until a really, really long time in the future – like 2041. Even when Link goes to Lynnwood, it’s still going to be a three-seat ride (minimum) from anywhere on the Green Line to anywhere in Seattle.

         Splitting the 512, once Lynnwood Link opens, and extending the Ash Way branch to 128th might be a good solution. Today, we don’t have the service hours to do it without drastic frequency cuts, but when the buses don’t need to slog all the way downtown anymore, that will change. It just needs to be done in such a way that a trip from 128th to Everett can be made without backtracking all the way to Lynnwood Transit Center.

         The 201/202 and 512 are quite redundant between Everett and Lynnwood. Some route consolidation, at some point, is probably in order.

      4. Just realized that the planned opening date of Link to Everett is 2036, not 2041. Still quite a long time, but not as long as I originally believed.

      5. @Tlsgwm — Thanks for the correction (I had the dates wrong in my head).

         @Mike — Yeah, exactly. There are apartments along the Bothell-Everett Highway (as I said) but not as many as along 128th. There are a lot of greenbelts, which limit how many people can live within walking distance of the highway. But it is the best choice. Other streets are slower, have even fewer people overall, and fewer businesses.

         @asdf2 Even when Link goes to Lynnwood, it’s still going to be a three-seat ride (minimum) from anywhere on the Green Line to anywhere in Seattle.

         Exactly. Same with the existing Swift Line as well. That is why we shouldn’t worry too much about how this will connect to buses headed to Lynnwood. That is a three seat ride — which is less than ideal. It isn’t like this bus will be running every five minutes (the existing Swift runs every 12 minutes at best). So there is a transfer penalty, which means that more direct express buses to Lynnwood would be a lot more popular. In other words, we should focus on one seat rides to Lynnwood, not how someone would take a two seat ride there (although one will be available).

         I suggested a decent one seat ride in that first comment. I can think of more productive ones though, even though it would overlap this. No one likes overlays, but the geography of the area calls out for one. Looking at a census map (https://arcg.is/0qzPH8), I think you could make a good case for running a bus like so: https://goo.gl/maps/3RBmESNnQVD2. This would pick up most of the high density blocks in Snohomish County, including the ones along Casino Road that have no bus service at all right now. Even if this wasn’t a Swift route (no off board payment) it could take advantage of much of the right-of-way given to it.

         Better yet, use Ash Way, but first swing by the Mariner Park and Ride (https://goo.gl/maps/8LrCdNCM1rw) or not (https://goo.gl/maps/qSMy7pfVVux). That could then become a relatively frequent (15 minute) all day express connecting the most densely populated parts of Snohomish County with Link (along with a connection to both Swift lines).

         The 201/202 and 512 are quite redundant between Everett and Lynnwood.

         Yeah, sort of, but the 201/202 serves Ash Way between 128 and 164th, while the 512 only serves Ash Way Park and Ride. Community Transit could end the 201/202 in Ash Way, but that means a transfer for those along Ash Way that want to get to Lynnwood.

         I agree, though, it isn’t ideal. When Link gets to Lynnwood, it makes sense to do a restructure. The simplest, cheapest thing to do is just have the 512 skip Ash Way. That makes the 512 essentially an all day 510 (which is faster). Those trying to get from Ash Way to Everett or Lynnwood just take the 201/202. ST saves oodles of service hours, while Community Transit doesn’t have to change a thing.

         I don’t think that is ideal, though. I prefer the routes I outlined. There would still be some redundancy, but mostly just overlap. End the 201/202 at Ash Way Park and Ride (saving a little money). Split up the 512 (and yes, this would definitely come with the savings from building Lynnwood Link). One route would be like the 510 (a very fast express from Everett to Lynnwood, with only the stop at South Lynnwood). The other route would be like the one I described in this comment, or the previous one. Basically, a route that starts at Lynnwood, gets off the freeway at Ash Way, travels north, but never gets back on the freeway (call it 511+). Folks going from Everett to Lynnwood have a faster trip. Those around Ash Way have fast trips to Lynnwood or Everett (on different buses). A new, relatively densely populated area has bus service for the first time.

         There is less redundancy, in that you don’t have two sets of buses going from Ash Way Park and Ride to Lynnwood. But in terms of service savings, all of it comes from Lynnwood Link. But if you implemented it now it wouldn’t cost that much more. You basically have some overlap along Ash Way is all. The truncation of the 202/201 is replaced by the 511+, but the plus part of that route will cost extra. You have a small amount of savings by switching the 512 to 510 (skipping Ash Way) but not that much from a service standpoint. Overall, while it would cost more (especially if the 511+ went all the way to Casino Road, as I proposed) the savings from not sending the 512 to Seattle alone would be enough to make up for that.

         It just needs to be done in such a way that a trip from 128th to Everett can be made without backtracking all the way to Lynnwood Transit Center.

         I would keep the existing 201/202, just truncate it as Ash Way Park and Ride, so that wouldn’t be a problem. But even if we decided to eliminate the 201/202, you wouldn’t have to head back to Lynnwood. You could take this Swift line and the other Swift line. I have no idea how many people ride the 201/202 from Everett to 128th, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the numbers are relatively low. The 512 operates as a classic commuter bus, with Seattle as the city, and every other stop as the suburb. In other words, for a northbound bus, very few people board outside Seattle, they are all getting off. Lynnwood has 66, Ash Way has 32, South Everett has 14. If Community Transit decided to truncate the 201/202 in Everett (and ask people to transfer to the all day 510 to get to Lynnwood) I wouldn’t blame them. A handful of riders would have a lengthier trip to Everett, but who knows what they could do with the service savings. There are a lot of areas that are relatively densely populated in Snohomish County that have no service at all. Replacing the 201/202 with a frequent bus that connected them to Lynnwood (via Ash Way) while asking other riders to make a transfer to get to Everett would be a reasonable trade-off. That probably won’t happen (it would upset people, and there is no need to do that) but it would be reasonable.

      6. @RossB: I’d be rather opposed to truncating the 201/202 away from Lynnwood TC, especially once it has light rail service. During off-peak and weekends, it will likely be the only reliable transit between light rail and northern Snohomish County, so having a direct one-seat ride will be essential from a basic service perspective. There’s not a lot of savings to be found with truncating at Ash Way, since the remainder to Lynnwood TC takes very little time, and Ash Way doesn’t have enough layover space to accommodate the 201/202 in addition to its current routes. The Everett-to-Mariner segment actually gets pretty decent ridership on the trips I ride (usually southbound in the mid-to-late AM peak, and northbound after PM peak), since it’s the only frequent and nearly-non-stop route between the transit centers.

         All of this will be moot once the 201/202 is converted to Swift+feeder service around 2027, however.

      7. I haven’t seen 128th so I don’t know how many apartments are there. Is that where the residential concentration between Lynnwood and Everett is?

         Lynnwood is the commercial center of Snohomish County in some ways, so i can see people in Marysville wanting a one-seat ride to Lynnwood, and that it’s good for the transit network to do so. It’s like Bothell to Bellevue on the Eastside. You can force a transfer in Kirkland but most of the destinations and transfers are in Bellevue.

      8. @Bruce — I’d be rather opposed to truncating the 201/202

         It really wouldn’t be a truncation — more like a split. The 201/202 would be truncated at Ash Way Park and Ride. But you also have overlapping service from a new bus. This wouldn’t make any sense if the southern bus (the one that goes to Lynnwood) ended at 128th. But it wouldn’t. It would go farther. My first idea is something like this: https://goo.gl/maps/8CZeVZ5EKi82. The second idea is a lot longer, but runs by way more people, like so: https://goo.gl/maps/8LrCdNCM1rw or https://goo.gl/maps/qSMy7pfVVux (depending on whether you want to serve the Mariner Park and Ride).

         Since this is overlapping service, the cost actually goes up (it goes up quite a bit if you go with the latter proposals). This only makes sense once Lynnwood Link comes on line, and we have the savings from that to afford projects like this. There are several advantages to this routing, but the biggest one is that you serve new neighborhoods. It is a very long walk from a lot of apartments (or the high school) to the nearest bus. Another advantage is reliability. If you took the cheap route (and just run the bus to the high school) then riders from the Mariner Park and Ride have a much more reliable trip to Lynnwood (the bus won’t be delayed if there is an accident on the freeway).

         Splits are expensive. Overlapping splits are even more expensive. But the value here seems very high, especially if you went with the option that cut over to Casino Road. That would provide a lot of relatively dense areas with a fast trip to Lynnwood (and on to Seattle) including areas that have no service at all right now. Either bus (this one or the other one) should run at least as often as the 201/202 (every 15 minutes).

         The Everett-to-Mariner segment actually gets pretty decent ridership on the trips I ride (usually southbound in the mid-to-late AM peak, and northbound after PM peak), since it’s the only frequent and nearly-non-stop route between the transit centers.

         Interesting. All the more reason why they would keep it. I was throwing out the idea of getting rid of it, but I think now it would be a bad idea. Not only would you upset a fair number of riders, but ridership should go us as this Swift Line is built. That will be a good way for folks along much of this route to get to Everett.

      9. I haven’t seen 128th so I don’t know how many apartments are there. Is that where the residential concentration between Lynnwood and Everett is?

         If you look at the census map and satellite maps, you can get a pretty good idea of where the residential concentration is. It isn’t focused right on the highway (like parts of Aurora) nor is it the three dimensional concentration (as d.p. used to call it) of Ballard. But it is somewhere in between. An apartment building here, an apartment building there. Looking at the census map, there are only 20 blocks in Snohomish County with more than 10,000 per square mile (and none over 25,000). The route I described earlier (https://goo.gl/maps/8LrCdNCM1rw) would go by 8 of them, and provide new bus service for 3 of them (give or take). From what I can tell, the apartments that give those census blocks their relatively high numbers would all be well served by this route. A much shorter route, like the one to the high school (https://goo.gl/maps/8CZeVZ5EKi82) would go by 3, which is very good for a route that short.

         Some of the census data is out of date, of course, with all the new buildings in the area. There are new apartments along Ash Way (that would be served) making the route even stronger. 164th has some growth, and some existing apartments as well, although I think it is still weaker, and will remain weaker, which is why they are building the Green Line first. But a line from SR 99 (on the west side) all the way past this (Green) Line and on up to 132nd seems to be in the works. It is shown on the first page of this document (https://tinyurl.com/ybueh96x). That would be a good bus line, since it would connect cross both of the other Swift lines (on SR 99 and 527) and connect to the express buses to Seattle, Lynnwood and Everett (at Ash Way Park and Ride).

2. As much as I think Swift is a great concept, I continue to fret over the use of colors because it conflicts with ST’s branding. The region generally needs to come to terms with the overlapping branding that operators use, and prepare a banding system to which all operators agree. Leaving it for each operator to pick confuses riders.

   I have my preferences, but I’d be happy if the region would merely be consistent!

   1. ST doesn’t have much branding yet. Link colors have been announced, but not the BRT theme, and Tacoma Link may also get a makeover when Central Link reaches it.

      It would be nice to see Swift, ST BRT, and the more corridor-like ST Express routes have the same brand, but fat chance.

      1. Still, I’d like to see us transit advocates push for it — and get others to push for it too.

         We’ve already got a disconnect between RapidRide and SWIFT, with Pierce and 522/405 branding not yet decided. Now is the time to address this before BRT operators go from two to four.

      2. I didn’t include RapidRide because it’s different from Swift. Swift is a limited-stop overlay but RapidRide is the only route in its corridor so it has more stops.

         Still, Al S has a point about colors. In 2024 Link will have Red and Blue colors in Snohomish County, and Swift will have not only colors but overlapping colors. How will that work on maps? Is there any other city that has colored metro lines and colored bus lines? It might make sense where the bus lines are considered equivalent to rail or a first step in future rail corridors, but Swift has not been positioned this way, and while I consider Swift “poor man’s light rail” and appropriate for Snohomish County’s density, someone looking at a map would say, “Why does Snohomish County have all these quasi-rail lines when King County doesn’t?”

      3. There’s a chance that ST could go the BART route and use color as a secondary (or hidden) designation, with a line name first. We could be calling the trains to Bellevue/Redmond the “Eastside Line”, while it retains a blue color on the map.

      4. The recent survey put on line for ST shows an intent to use colors with the first letter of each color in a circle: the proposed signs show no proper names or destinations. http://survey.euro.confirmit.com/wix/9/p1863265129.aspx?QP=1&__sres=212%7C160

      5. Los Angeles gave its busway BRT lines color names (Orange and Silver) on par with its rail lines. However, with more lines approved for the future they’ll run out of easy distinguishable colors and have proposed naming lines by letters.

         BART is slowly moving away from endpoint names to colors.

   2. Wonder if it would work to have an emblem, or several, at the same place on all the buses. However, I wish the police and fire departments would demand that no advertising “wrap” will cover and window.

      I’m surprised they’ve let it pass for so long. Both of these forces have a legitimate need to see the entire scene they’re coming onto. Especially what’s going on inside the bus. Personally, I also feel cheated out of the enjoyment I’ve always thought my bus fare, and taxes, should cover.

      Especially in a part of the country a major part of whose value is the scenery. I’m surprised the public puts up with this either. I’d have no problem “wrapping” every inch of metal outside the coach.Also both outside and inside of all transit offices. And we’re ‘way behind rest of the world on lighted panels on bus stop shelters.

      We’re probably already starting to evolve either giant falcons or pterodactyls by having so many people walk around with eyes on a tiny hand-held screen and plugs in their ears. But since nobody wants to look down the aisle anymore let alone out the window, might be best to wrap the whole coach.

      Problem with windshield will go away when drivers also do. Whose wages can then be diverted to whole inside of bus equipped with video panels. And post programming schedule so passengers can choose war between any two groups of people or creatures, or actors who are also sometimes wolves.

      Those Martians will surrender immediately when the Vikings from Planet Ballard come ashore (or whatever it’s called from outer space) with dragons’ head starships breathing real fire. But better try it out on ST Express first. Zorks could get a lot of Vikings during info conversations and fair disputes.

      Also – hundred percent off board fare collection. ORCA can easily be loaded with doubloons, chunks of uranium, giant wolf-biscuits and other things that would otherwise have to be rammed down fareboxes with a spear or crumpled with a blaster. Do they still accept bit-coin now?

      MD

   3. Personally I don’t find it confusing at all, and I think very few people will. For the most part, I doubt people will even talk about the colors of Link until it gets to Ballard and West Seattle. One train goes to the airport, while the other goes to Bellevue (or Redmond, whatever). Going the other direction, it doesn’t matter.

      But even if people associate our train lines with colors, I can’t imagine they would confuse a bus with a train. There will only be one train line in Snohomish County, and so no one in Lynnwood will ever refer to it by color. In other words, no one will ever say “take the green bus and the blue train”, they will simply say “take the green bus and the train”.

      Note: I have no idea what color our trains will be, nor will I ever care. We won’t build a complicated subway network in my lifetime. At most we will have two train lines to the UW, two to Ballard, one to West Seattle, etc. Since the trains (today) show the destination, it is very simple to figure out which way the train is going. The only time the colors are handy is when discussing the network on blogs (like this) and I find simply stating the line (e. g. Ballard Line) to be fairly easy.

      1. It’s about to get more confusing!

         ST is proposing to use the first initial of each color in its branding: http://survey.euro.confirmit.com/wix/9/p1863265129.aspx?QP=1&__sres=212%7C160

         So we will have a red Rapidaride B to a Link B-Blue line to a Swift blue line with no B. Note also that RapodRide and Link letters are inside a circle.

         How is this not terribly confusing? If we transit advocates don’t say anything, who will?

      2. So if this isn’t confusing, how do we brand 405 and 522 BRT?

      3. Yeah, it would be better if Community Transit used numbers. But there are plenty of Snohomish County buses that share the same number as King County buses. It only gets confusing if they overlap. That is why it is nice that Sound Transit has buses in the 500s (to avoid confusion). We know that the original Swift Line, and the RapidRide E will overlap their service area. My guess is that is the only place where you could have a real problem. So as long as Community Transit avoids calling a Swift Line something like “Eggplant”, I think we are OK. Swift B and RapidRide B will be as different as Community Transit 201 and Metro 201. Yes, you could take the Link Blue Line to connect them, but that is a train (and my guess is the vast majority of the riders will have no idea that the train is the Blue Line, it is simply the train to Lynnwood or Everett).

         As far as Sound Transit goes, I’m not sure what they will do. I understand the purpose of branding. It is more than just marketing (although a lot of is marketing). It sends a signal to riders that the bus operates differently. Unless we go to a system like Vancouver’s (where you don’t pay the driver on any bus) it is very handy to know that with a RapidRide or Swift bus, your method of payment is different (or at least, often different). I doubt that Sound Transit will go with letters, because obviously there system overlaps the other counties (that is the whole point). My guess is the stay with numbers, but just add an adjective, similar to Swift or RapidRide. They could even just use the term “Rapid”, as long as they coordinate the letters with Metro. Or they could continue to use numbers (all in the 500s). In other words “ST Rapid 522”, or “ST Rapid 505”. The colors would be different than both the other systems, as well as different than the existing ST buses. I wouldn’t recommend that — it makes it harder to look up — but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

      4. The point is how they look on a map. A map will probably have Link’s line colors. RapidRide will all probably be the maroon color, but will Swift all be one color even though it has colored lines? But if you use colors for Link and colors for Swift, how do you distinguish them? With narrower lines for Swift? There are ways to mitigate it but it’s a potential problem, and it will require a good map design to be clear.

         Again, are there any other cities that have colors for both metro lines and one agency’s rapid buses? The Los Angeles situation sounds like quasi-rail BRT, only a few lines, managed by the same agency as the trains. Whereas with Swift you have a different agency planning five or six lines (like the Seattle Monorail would have been) and not at all coordinating colors with ST. In any case, Swift is so unlike regional rail/BRT that it shouldn’t be drawn the same way as Link, as “:just more colors”.

      5. It’s a branding stand-off between Community Transit and Sound Transit (and perhaps Metro)! LOL!

         Some operator is going to have to blink!

         A variety of ideas from elsewhere, as pondered:

         1. ST could simply feature proper names to Link as primary rather than colors. Considering that the system already uses separate proper names for Sounder and Link and that we’re only talking about four lines (five if one counts Tacoma Link), coming up with names would not be very hard. I’d even note that before Boston and Washington pushed colors, most rail lines were given numbers, letters or proper names. New Jersey Transit and SEPTA still call each rail service by a proper name. Cleveland RTA alternatively uses colors for the rail lines, but proper names for the BRT lines and Waterfront Line.

         2. If ST sticks to colors, ST should probably do what Washington Metro does, and use a two-letter abbreviation for each line. Metro uses RD for Red and SV for Silver, for example. At least that would eliminate the confusing redundancy of having RapidRide Letters B (and future G) be duplicated by Sound Transit for street signage. Washington Metro seems reasonably concerned about the implications of color on non-color print or for color-blind riders — which is of course clearer than ST’s proposed one letter for each color.

         3. Community Transit could add letters and use them as the primary reference while leaving colors alone. A good example is San Francisco’s Muni Metro, which historically has used letters for but also has introduced distinctive colors for each rail line. This also gets around the color-blind/color-print problem.

         Resolving this doesn’t appear hard. It just requires that the operators work through this together and everyone sign on to a common scheme. I mean, isn’t having operators work together to make things clearer to riders a good thing?

         Plus, this is the year to do it! ST3 is approved. New services are being designed and implemented. We need to do this now rather than wait until 2025 when confusion will be rampant and retrofitting all the new signage is going to cost lots of money.

         Some regional agency could lead this. (PSRC I’m looking at you. ST could also do this since ST3 is dedicating money back to other operators.)

         Will someone important please advocate for having the transit agencies work together on branding in 2018? If we can negotiate Orca cards this is infinitely easier to do.

      6. “ST should probably do what Washington Metro does, and use a two-letter abbreviation for each line.”

         The Washington Metro has the full color name on the trains. That would be even better, and give each line a name. It wouldn’t resolve the Swift problem though.

         I found ST’s sign suggestions in its survey disorienting. While I liked the overall layout of the signposts, a single letter R, B, G in a color circle does not reinforce the color for me; it makes me think of a line letter that should start with A. And it conflicts with RapidRide’s use of letters just around the corner. That could cause real confusion, moreso than the theoretical problems with “University Street Station”. At the very least ST should use the full color names, which are all five letters or less for these colors. (Shorter than “Yellow”!)

   4. I’m in agreement with Ross B (see above) on this one as I don’t see the color thing as causing any sort of confusion with users. Up here in Snohomish County, we will simply refer to the blue/green/orange Swift bus line and the train or Link.

      Whenever I have traveled to other regions around the country and the world where I have used multiple modes of transit and relied upon color-coded transit maps*, I haven’t had any issues such as the ones you’ve alluded to. I think most users, including visitors/tourists, can figure out their correct routes in short order with well-designed transit maps.

      *The one time I can remember that this wasn’t the case was using the river taxi in Bangkok back in the early 1990’s. I just couldn’t seem to find the right street that led to the right dock to catch the taxi back to the area of the city I was staying in. (I’m sure the signage there has improved dramatically since then. Lol.)

3. ” University Center of North Puget Sound was formerly located on the 2nd floor of the station building, providing baccalaureate and graduate degrees through local universities and colleges until it moved to the campus of Everett Community College in 2010.”

   Finally found answer to my question…buried like somebody is trying to hide doing something I didn’t like, but really doubt that was reason. I’ve been bragging about having it in the Station, and always liked stopping in there in the days my schedule took me to Everett more often. On both ST Express and Swift.

   Hard to buy the idea that somebody would put a facility like that into the station temporarily. Thinking back, do remember a sense of emptiness and tape on broken windows. Anybody who hopefully either knows or cares, please let me know. Finally found that book. Would never have stolen it if I thought anybody would miss the original Gutenberg Bible.

   Please come back so I can give it back. My fine should pay relocation expense!

   Mark

4. And an operating question. It’s good Swift will have “Queue Jumps.” But my problem with BRT along SR99 is with how many buses get caught at a stop light at all. Will signal system let the buses hold or pre-empt lights ahead of it?

   MD

   1. A quick search found this: ftp://ftp.snoco.org/Public_Works/Adaptive%20Signal%20Appendices/2017-02-08%20Snohomish%20County%20ASCT%20-%20Appendix%20A%20Concept%20of%20Operations%20(REVISED).pdf. In the intro, it says that one of the goals of the project is

      Supporting Transit Signal Priority (TSP) for the SWIFT II route along the project corridors.

      So there planning on doing it for Swift 2, which means I assume they will do it for Swift 1, unless they have done so already.

   2. The original Swift does have some transit signal priority treatments at certain intersections, which includes green light holds. It was installed a few years before Swift, primarily for Routes 100 and 101.

Comments are closed.