Route 107, one of several slated for peak-hour upgrades

Community Transit has released a set of proposed route changes for southern Snohomish County that would take effect in September 2020 and March 2021. These changes are a continuation of other small tweaks to the route network that are meant to prepare local connections for the arrival of Lynnwood Link in 2024, which will involve a massive commuter route restructure and a new bus rapid transit line.

Public comment on these proposed service changes can be made via email, phone, social media posts, or at a hearing set for April 2 (barring a COVID-19 cancellation). Community Transit will also have a live Facebook webcast on March 24 to take questions from the public.

Routes 109: New corridor

Proposed changes to Route 109 (Community Transit)

Route 109 has remained mostly unchanged since it debuted in 2016 as the southern half of new service on State Route 9. The route overlaps with Routes 201/202 on Ash Way, but a proposed route change would move it to an entirely unserved suburban street on the other side of Interstate 5.

The Meadow Road corridor between McCollum Park and Ash Way Park and Ride lacks bus service, but has seen new development in the last decade, including a 24/7 medical clinic operated by Swedish, two apartment complexes, and several townhouse subdivisions. The move would require buses to traverse a notoriously congested part of 164th Street Southwest to cross over Interstate 5, without the assistance of the queue jumps added to 128th Street Southwest for the Swift Green Line.

Routes 107, 112, and 435: More peak trips

Proposed changes to Route 107 (Community Transit)

Community Transit also plans to add more peak-hour trips to Routes 107, 112, and 435 in September 2020. Route 107, which connects Lynnwood Transit Center to the Boeing Everett Factory at Seaway Transit Center, will have four additional round trips that would start slightly earlier and later. The route would also be modified to loop around the Harbour Pointe area, following the route of Route 113 instead of bypassing the area on State Route 525.

Additional trips are also planned for Route 112, boosting it to 15-minute frequencies during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The route connects four major park-and-ride lots in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, as well as the 44th Avenue corridor. The change is driven by recent light rail construction, which has impacted parking access at Mountlake Terrace TC and Lynnwood TC, and to encourage more drivers to use Swamp Creek P&R instead of the overloaded Ash Way P&R.

Route 435, which connects Canyon Park P&R and Downtown Seattle, would get one northbound trip in the early afternoon to address crowding issues.

Route 111: New corridors and service

Proposed changes to Route 111 (Community Transit)

The most ambitious proposal comes for Route 111, which will have the entire March 2021 service change to itself. The route is currently a short, peak-only, peak-direction connector between the small city of Brier and Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, created to compensate for the loss of direct commuter buses to Downtown Seattle in 2011.

The new and improved Route 111 would have bi-directional service all day on weekdays and Saturdays. Buses would run every 30 minutes during peak hours and hourly at all other times, including on Saturdays. The route would be extended via local streets to Edmonds Community College, the Lynnwood civic campus, and Alderwood Mall. The corridor includes sections of 66th Avenue West, 68th Avenue West, and 188th Street Southwest, which all lack current bus service.

The new route forms a U-shaped loop that resembles a game of snake rather than the preferred straightened alignments favored for simplified bus networks, but is made necessary by the incomplete nature of the suburban grid. The route will have to make some dips with additional turns to serve the Edmonds Swedish Medical Center and the college, but both are likely to be high-demand destinations. The U-shaped routing will also allow it to create two new east-west corridors that connect well to the Swift Blue Line on Highway 99 but would be awkwardly short routes on their own.

The new Route 111 would also provide additional connections to Edmonds Park & Ride, which is underutilized and has mediocre connections to the I-5 corridor beyond its own commuter route (Route 405). The park-and-ride is expected to lure away some commuters deterred by the six-month closure of the Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station and other parking disruptions in the area because of light rail construction. Sound Transit will be providing a “special shuttle” service to Downtown Seattle during the closure.

29 Replies to “Community Transit proposes new corridors and additional peak trips”

  1. I’m seeing a general theme here, in that CT is consistently choosing coverage over frequency and speed when setting their routing decisions.

    For instance, 109 adds coverage on the east side of I-5, at the price of losing frequency on the west side of I-5, plus slowing down the route by adding a bit of backtracking and the loss of a queue jump to cross I-5. Route 107 adds considerable travel time for every person on the bus in order to serve a smattering of single family homes along a street whose walkshed is largely consumed by a golf course. Route 111, the basic U-shaped route is ok, considering that route 112 is available to provide the straight shot down 44th Ave., but there still seems to be unnecessary meandering. Edmonds P&R is served with a detour a few blocks to the west. Edmonds Community College, the bus insists on exiting the street to serve the front door, rather than just have an ordinary bus stop on the street, a mere 300 feet away, with an excellent sidewalk.

    Also, of course, route 111 is entirely new coverage, whose service hours could have been used to boost the frequency of some existing route, instead. A level of service equal to half-hourly peak, hourly off-peak, is pretty terrible (but all too typical for Community Transit).

    1. I don’t think it is that simple. I think this is setting the stage for further changes. They are likely gathering data, so that when they can make bigger changes (in response to Northgate Link and then Lynnwood Link) they have an idea of what works and what doesn’t. Some things to consider:

      109 — Harbor Pointe does serve apartments. Sprawling apartments, certainly, but apartments that make up what will now be one of the most densely populated parts of the route ( It is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. Long distance riders (e. g. those who work in Seattle and take several buses to get to Boeing) are out of luck. But those who live relatively close have a one seat connection. My guess is they found that not enough people ride the bus from Seattle (or Lynnwood) but hope that more local riders will take the bus. The only way they could justify increased frequency is by hoping that more local riders make up for the loss of longer distance ones. I don’t like the route, but I think eventually they will change it. I could see having a smaller live loop for Harbor Pointe to Boeing, while keeping the all day 113. If there was enough demand, then I could see an express to Mukilteo, but I don’t think there is. The only way you can have enough ridership to justify decent frequency is by making what appear to be detours.

      111 — It is not entirely new coverage. As noted, the eastern part exists now. The western part doubles up with the 119 a bit, then separates. If anything though, I think the 111 has it right, and the 119 will eventually follow its lead. The 119 does not make a good connection with Swift, despite crossing SR 99. It is about a 7 minute walk ( If they find that lots of people make that transfer, then they might send both buses that way. If timed correctly, that would mean 15 minute service from Swedish Edmonds to Mountlake Terrace. Of course that is true with this new route — it is just that the stops are on opposite sides of the hospital.

      Which gets me to my point. It isn’t all coverage, if you think of it in terms of destinations. From Swedish Edmonds to Mountlake Terrace you’ve doubled the amount of trips. From Mountlake Terrace to just about anywhere on SR 99 you’ve doubled it as well. You aim for the 111 (since it is faster, and involves less walking). But if you get off of Swift and find that you just missed the 111, you don’t have to wait a half hour. You can walk to the 119, even though you do run the risk of missing that connection (although worse case scenario, you would walk for about 15 minutes, and catch the bus where they double up: Going the other direction, it is much simpler. Just take the first bus that gets there.

      You also now have a one seat connection between Edmonds CC and Mountlake Terrace that doesn’t involve a really long walk (

      So yeah, you could consider these changes as being coverage based, but usually when people write that, they are talking about an area with low demand. In this case, the routes may have more demand than the old ones.

      1. I’m very skeptical that Harbor Pointe is more ridership potential than Lynnwood. A quick look at the map explains why. Perhaps CT has given up on attracting choice riders and has decided that people without other options will just suck it up and endure the detour because they have no choice

        Still, if there isn’t enough demand to connect Lynnwood to Boeing with a straight line bus, why is there enough demand to justify Link trains running between them every 3 minutes.

      2. I’m very skeptical that Harbor Pointe is more ridership potential than Lynnwood. A quick look at the map explains why.

        You must be looking at a different map. There just isn’t much along the route of the 107. Besides, that’s not the point. The folks in Alderwood — or more likely the folks that transferred to this bus from another bus — still have their ride to SeaWay. Some will abandon the bus because of this detour. More will ride it from Harbor Pointe. The net addition of riders is the only way CT can justify more frequency, which in turn will like assuage those from Lynnwood. Yeah, it takes longer to get to work, but at least they have a little more flexibility.

        Still, if there isn’t enough demand to connect Lynnwood to Boeing with a straight line bus, why is there enough demand to justify Link trains running between them every 3 minutes.

        Because there isn’t. They will be lucky if they have enough demand for trains every 10. My guess is they peak around 12 minutes — not 20, like a lot of similar systems — but 12. Can they justify the expense, given that much demand? Of course not, but ST3 is full of similar examples.

      3. “if there isn’t enough demand to connect Lynnwood to Boeing with a straight line bus, why is there enough demand to justify Link trains running between them every 3 minutes.”

        Build it and they will come. :) The Paine Field detour is more about economic factors than ridership. The main reason for it is to attract companies to the Everett Industrial District. These companies will supposedly pay family wages, be a new tax base, and allow more Snohomish residents to work in-county. (Currently some 70% of Snohomans work in King County.) When the county was showing off the district to a German company (Siemens?), the company asked about the district’s transit plan and was aghast to learn it had no plans for high-capacity transit, which is required for German industrial districts.

      4. So, I pulled up Google Maps and looked up some schedules. From Lynnwood Transit Center to Seaway Transit Center, it’s currently scheduled at about 30 minutes on the 107. A Harbor Pointe detour would add a minimum of 7 minutes if it’s nonstop, but if anybody actually rides the bus there, there will additional delays for passenger loading, so the total travel time will creep up to around 45 minutes.

        For comparison purposes, it is also possible to travel from Lynnwood Transit Center to Seaway Transit Center by connecting between the 201/202 and the SWIFT Green Line. Google Maps estimates this two-seat ride at 46 minutes.

        The 107, today, acts like a peak express. It skips over most of the neighborhoods, following the SR-525 freeway instead of meandering through local streets, with the end result, saving riders about 15 minutes. The proposed 107 still spends a lot of service hours on an 11-mile mostly-freeway express, only to squander nearly all of the time it actually saves its riders on a detour through Harbor Point to pick up a few more riders.

        I don’t travel in that area, but such a change does not appear to pass the smell test. Either the current ridership on the 107 is enough to justify an express to save its riders 15-20 minutes or it’s not. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, the 107 needs to continue to serve the direct route; otherwise, it’s principle purpose of saving its riders time gets defeated. If the answer is “no”, the express portion of the 107 shouldn’t even exist; just run a shuttle from Harbor Point to Boeing, and let Lynnwood riders ride the 201/202->Green Line combination. FWIW, during peak hours, the 201/202 run combined every 15-20 minutes, while the Green Line runs every 10 minutes. The transfer is not terrible, and there should be budget to make the 201/202 part more frequent, once Lynnwood Link opens and the commuter routes are truncated.

        Also, looking at the map, yes, Harbor Pointe has a few apartments, but the area around Lynnwood Transit Center has more, and also has a lot more growth potential for the future. It’s getting a Link Station, which may carry some people from north Seattle, where a transit commute to Boeing today is effectively infeasible. Plus, I recall there is quite a bit of TOD planned near the Lynnwood Station site.

        At the end of the day, pretty much the only way a 107+Harbor Pointe Detour makes any sense is if you subscribe to the old-school transit planning notion that travel times are unimportant to attracting riders, while a one-seat ride is extremely important. This is the kind of assumption that leads to transit networks with a lot of fat in them. CT already has dismal frequency from spreading its service very thin. Any service which exists merely to avoid a transfer, but doesn’t actually save its riders any time over a more frequent, two-seat alternative, is wasted service hours, in terms of actual mobility, which could have been spent running some other route more frequently.

      5. just run a shuttle from Harbor Point to Boeing

        OK, yeah, and how many people will ride that bus? No one knows, because it doesn’t exist right now. That’s the point. Transit agencies experiment. Of course they look at the various sources of data to come up with ideas, but at this point, they don’t know how many people would ride from Harbor Pointe to Seaway.

        let Lynnwood riders ride the 201/202->Green Line combination

        That may be the long range plan, although my guess is they split the routes when they get extra money (from killing off the express routes to Seattle). Anyway, my guess is that the bulk of the riders transfer at Lynnwood Transit Center. So asking them to transfer to the 201/202 and then the Green Line would mean a three seat ride (or in many cases, a four seat one). I think the savings (after the detour) will still be significant, and either way, people will prefer the one seat ride.

        Clearly this is favoring the existing system (with a one seat ride from Lynnwood to Seaway) but that is common and clear for much of the CT network. This is not a major restructure. It is the agency trying a few things, to see if they work. Do you get a lot of riders from Harbor Pointe to Seaway? For that matter, are there any riders from Lynnwood to Harbor Pointe? Will riders from Lynnwood switch to a different bus now that the 107 is much slower? Will they instead ride it more, since they’ve added more runs? The same is true for the other routes — this looks to me like an agency trying a few things and seeing what happens (without trying to disrupt existing riders too much).

        Harbor Pointe has a few apartments, but the area around Lynnwood Transit Center has more

        Not from what I can tell, although I’ll admit it is not always obvious what is an apartment and what is a house in Harbor Pointe. Just to be clear, I’m not saying the area is especially dense, but neither is the area close to Lynnwood TC. In both cases you’ve got a lot of greenery as well as parking. But from what I can tell, Harbor Pointe has more density.

        It also has some of the exact same jobs that this is supposed to serve. The extra loop through Chennault Beach Road seems especially wasteful, but my guess is they think there will be some riders there getting off in the morning instead of getting on.

        This is not a major route. It is quite possible that CT wants to kill it, because very few people ride it and it takes a long time to run. This may be a last ditch effort to save it.

      6. but ST3 is full of similar examples.

        There you go again, Ross. You really do not know what the Puget Sound region will look like in 20 years when Link to Everett opens. Maybe Seattle will relent and allow your goal of “missing middle development” everywhere, but I would not bank on it. As much as you and Mike hate “towers in the park”, ordinary mortals who want a back yard think they’re a good idea for other people.

        Is that selfish? Sure is. But as long as they hold the power in Seattle, townhouses and flats are not going to replace the cottages at the rate needed. In fact, what IS replacing the cottages — all over the city! — is huge single-family dwellings that essentially cover the parcel.

        So there will be no alternative to large developments in South King and Snohomish Counties; North King is pretty built out, and East King is mostly mountains where the Richie Rich’s don’t live. Do you want that development to be more sprawl with the resultant increase in VMT or do you want half miles circles of ten to twenty story buildings with lots of restaurants and activity business around Link stations? Yes, that’s the “Chinese” model, but it seems to work for them and I think it’s the only politically possible solution.

        Because the people are going to be coming from California and Arizona in ever-increasing hordes. The Colorado River is drying up as is the Salt. For real. Most of Arizona is uninhabitable without them as is Southern California, forget about the demands for agriculture.

        Those people are not going to go to Minnesota or Montana; they’ll come to Oregon and Washington as the closest thing to what they have now.

        So, those “ridiculous suburban stations” will be surrounded by a total of MORE people than live in Seattle when all is said and done.

      7. @Tom — Do you really believe that current trends will suddenly reverse themselves? If so, why?

        Just to be clear, right now Seattle is growing faster than the surrounding areas. Not only in total number, but in number per area. This means the increase in density is higher. So the area (Seattle) that has the most density will have much higher density.

        Transit ridership is determined in part by density, and the relationship is not linear. So if an area doubles, transit ridership more than doubles.

        Proximity to destinations also plays a part in transit ridership, especially as the transit system evolves. There is a network effect for urban areas that simply does not exist with suburban ones. When Northgate Link opens, lots of people will take the train from Northgate to Capitol Hill. Very few will take it from Ash Way to Capitol Hill, even if Ash Way suddenly becomes densely populated. It is just too far for a casual trip. That is even more the case for two and three seat rides, which will make up the bulk of our transit system in the suburbs. A lot more people will take transit from Bitter Lake to Capitol Hill then take transit from an apartment on 164th SW to Capitol Hill.

        It isn’t just density and proximity, either. Some places have all day attractions, others don’t. In most cases, density and proximity also correspond to all day attractions. Capitol Hill is a great example, but so too are places like Roosevelt, Northgate and the UW. These are places with lots of people, and lots of attractions. Of course they will see more riders during rush hour than the rest of the day, but they will still see plenty of riders in the middle of the day. Riders outside of rush hour will dwarf those during rush hour, simply because there are more hours outside the day.

        Yet this isn’t the case with a lot of suburban areas. Ridership is almost completely peak direction during rush hours. This is why commuter transit *always* lags urban transit. Even in cities with outstanding commuter rail, and very slow urban transit (like the Bay Area) transit ridership inside the city is much higher. This also explains why most cities don’t spend a fortune building subways so far away from the urban core. Ridership is peak oriented (and not as large overall) so they get by with express buses and commuter rail, both of which provide the type of express service that the riders want, at a fraction of the cost.

        All of this is basic stuff, that can be gathered by looking at successful transit systems the world over. It explains why big cities have extensive mass transit systems that don’t extend that far outside the city. What Seattle is building is unusual, and when it has been attempted, it has lagged other, more centralized systems for this reason.

        So, basically you are suggesting that the current trends not only reverse themselves, but they do so in such a way to counter the structural issues involved. Places like Mariner will not only catch up to places like Greenwood, but they will pass them, becoming a small Manhattan next to the freeway. Next to the skyscrapers, and large walk-up apartments will be concert halls a nightclubs — a rich, thriving social scene in what was once this:

        Yeah, I guess that is possible. But I think that is highly unlikely. I think it is far more likely that trends continue as they are currently, and much of ST3 will look like a waste, and obviously not what is the best value for the region.

      8. You’re obviously right that proximity is a major driver of “casual trips” or “non-peak travel” or any of a number of good things for transit to do. But the fact is that the parts of Seattle that politically speaking are available for development are just about used up. And in any case, Seattle is only a bit more than 12% of the Sound Transit district, leaving 88% to be turned into little Capitol Hills. The District is only one fourth the size of Los Angeles County.

        Now obviously, there are mountainous areas of LA County which total perhaps 65% of it’s area, so the ST district is about 2/3 as big as the developable area of LA County. Over 10 million people live in LA County and sure, many of them are going to stay even as it turns into Baja Norte Norte.

        But at least a couple of million will want out when they can’t have swimming pools and green lawns any more. Aridzona chic is very reluctantly being adopted in the eastern fringes and in Riverside County, but the folks west of I-5 still want the Beverly Hills lifestyle and if they can’t have it they’ll go where it’s greener.

        For some that will be Northern California, but its employment centers are already bursting with people and the Valley is noisy and stinky. So, they’re coming. Washington is going to be Californicated. They have to have places to live and you simply can’t stick them all in Seattle; the folks with the bucks to control the politics will make an ever stronger alliances with the Greenies to “Keep Seattle Safe for Bungalows¹”

        [1-“Bungalows may include dwellings of up to 3,500 square feet as long as only one family lives in them and they bring up the neighbors’ home values”]

      9. Seattle has already been “Californicated”. That is why we have places like Klahanie. Just don’t expect major transit projects to be built there, or work well if they are.

    2. I rely on 109 to go to the 128th st route to go to school. Idk what to do… any advice on where to go when the route changes? I still need to go to school for the years to come :(

      1. Not sure if I follow you. I assume you live west of the freeway (e. g. and you typically catch the 109 to head towards a school on the way to (or within) Snohomish (for example, Glacier Peak High School). If that is the case, I think the best alternative is to catch a bus along that west side and then transfer. If you catch it heading south, then you would have a very easy transfer (even if the first trip is the wrong direction). If you take it north, then you would have a long, unpleasant walk of a transfer.

        If you live close to 128th, and normally catch it there, then you could make that long walk over to the bus stop, on the other side. Or you could catch the Green Swift, and then transfer after the bus crossed the freeway. It looks like the bus stops are in different places, but fairly close to each other (

        I would definitely let Community Transit know that you don’t like the changes.

  2. Community Transit has an elected governing board, doesn’t it? So if a route is proposed that either serves fewer people or delivers worse service…what’s the voters’ problem that they let the planners get away with it?

    Mark Dublin

    1. No Mark, the CT board is made up of local mayors and councilmembers~ appointed in a somewhat mysterious process.

  3. All of Snohomish County is low density or towers in the park (along the Bothell-Everett Highway), so everything is coverage. The Swift Green line notably has as few passengers as Metro’s Route 27 probably. It’s not clear that one street is better than another when both of them have just houses and low-density industry. Who would go to those industrial buildings along Ash Way? Is anybody taking the bus to them now? Snohomish County has a lot of completely unserved streets that probably should have transit. Are Meadow Road and 188th Street SW two of those? I don’t know the area well enough to say. But if they do fill a significant coverage gap like the expansion of Swift Green and the 105 on the Bothell-Everett Highway or the 109 on Highway 9, then maybe it’s necessary. 15-minute service would be better than 30-minute service, but I understand there will be a lot more 15-minute service in major corridors when Lynnwood Link opens.

    1. Yes, exactly. If anything, the new 111 is the opposite of a coverage route. It seems designed to cherry pick the best spots. My guess it will be one of the more popular routes, given what it connects: Mountlake Terrace, Swift bus stop, Swedish Edmonds, Edmonds CC, Alderwood Mall. The only part that is coverage is 188th, and it is the only part I would change. I would send it to Lynnwood TC via 196th (where there are a lot more people) and try to time it with the 196 to get 15 minute coverage there (until Swift Orange takes care of that corridor). To be fair, though, the key connection along that corridor (Lynnwood TC to Edmonds CC) is covered fairly well with buses that go along 200th, making the choice to cover 188th a reasonable one. Basically it is a “cherry pick” route in the middle, with coverage on each end.

      1. Alderwood Mall (and surrounding shopping area) is a significant destination at the end of the extended 111, so at least it’s a relatively straight coverage tail with a destination at the end. 188th currently has no bus service at all. Also, between the 115, 116, and 120, there is already pretty frequent service between Lynnwood TC and Edmonds CC (196 stops pretty far from the heart of the campus). I would probably break it in to two distinct routes joining at Edmonds CC, but otherwise it looks like a sane bus route.

      2. Also, between the 115, 116, and 120, there is already pretty frequent service between Lynnwood TC and Edmonds CC (196 stops pretty far from the heart of the campus).

        Yeah, I wrote that. I’m just saying that adding service along 196th serves the apartments along 196th, which right now have only half hour service. Another half hour bus and they have 15 minute service. That would likely attract more riders than a bus on 188th (although the aforementioned service on 200th complicates things). Lots of people may be used to walking to 200th, and be OK with it.

        I don’t like the decision to go on 188th, but I don’t feel strongly about it. As we both mentioned, Alderwood Mall is a significant destination (the terminating loop also includes an apartment building). The problem is that 188th looks especially weak. It crosses SR 99 midway between Swift bus stops, and there is practically nothing there until the very end (and even then, it is weaker than Lynnwood TC).

        But this (and existing other end) are the only part of the route that I would consider “coverage”, in the sense that ridership probably suffers a bit compared to the alternative, but some people avoid a longer walk. As a coverage route (or rather, a coverage section), it isn’t bad at all.

      3. I wouldn’t characterize it as the opposite of a coverage route. It seems like a “coverage” route that also goes to popular places, to try to attract riders from the “coverage” areas (which here would be Brier primarily and 188th secondarily). It doesn’t seem like the best way to connect these places, but that’s probably where the coverage part is important.

      4. Mountlake Terrace, SR 99, Swedish Edmonds and Edmonds CC are not coverage — they are excellent destinations (for Snohomish County). Brier is weak, but it was covered before. 188th is the only new piece that I would call coverage.

        It doesn’t seem like the best way to connect these places …

        I don’t think you could do any better without a major restructure. This takes a fairly direct route from Mountlake Terrace to the hospital, and along the way goes right by the Swift bus stop. It go via the highway from there to the college, but there is very little along the highway between there. The route they chose — with exactly the same number of turns — goes by a lot more destinations.

        In contrast, the 119 starts out by going the wrong direction, entirely misses the Swift bus stop on SR 99 and manages to be a stones throw away from the college without actually serving it (it is a 10 minute walk at best). It picks up some apartments, but manages to avoid the biggest destination and connections in the area. Overall, the 119 looks weaker, and more like a coverage route, which is why it is weird that it will run more often. I would be tempted to send the 119 to Brier and run it every hour. Then I would truncate the 111 at Mountlake Terrace TC, have it run on 196th to Lynnwood TC and then run it every half hour. But like I said, that is the sort of bigger restructure that won’t happen right now, but should happen after Northgate Link, if not Lynnwood Link.

  4. Question of high-speed International Border-to-Border, passenger and freight, highway and rail, definitely [TOPIC] for another posting. Like for “Which side of the Cascades?”

    So, just crystal-ball-gazing into CT-land’s future…will fast jet-powered north-south boats and electric Super-Link start north-end service about same time as for Seattle-Olympia?

    And main question: Over the years, what kind of partner has CT been for the rest of Transit to deal with?

    Mark Dublin

  5. Route 871 to U District also serves the Edmonds Park and Ride. 871 runs tend to be significantly less crowded than the 810, which serves Lynnwood and McCallum Park and Ride and runs much later than the 871 — both in the morning and evening peaks. I’ve occasionally seen riders take the later 810 runs (maybe had to work later than 5:30 that day…imagine that) and ask the driver now how they can get to Edmonds Park and Ride. The extended 111 might be a welcome option for those riders especially if they tag-team with the 119 to make it every 15 minutes peak/30 off peak. The 115/116 currently do this, but there’s quite a time penalty if you ride up to Lynnwood TC then backtrack several miles on 115/116. Believe it or not 188th ST SW currently has no bus service, so it looks like they’re using the 111 to try and kill two birds with one stone.

    1. It seems like the park and ride is a minor part of this though. It definitely helps those who miss their last bus, or can’t catch it. But I doubt you will see a lot more people parking there, unless they extend the number of buses to downtown or the U-District. I don’t think that will happen until they start running the U-District buses to Northgate, which in turn should come with more frequent (or extended) service there.

      This is an all day route, and the park and ride will be irrelevant most of the day. I think the major users will be those just trying to get around in the middle of the day, especially those trying to get to the college. From Mountlake Terrace and several other places, you now have a one seat ride to the college. The 119 comes close, but the golf course forces riders into a long walk. This will be a big improvement for trips there, as well as the hospital (now served by both this and the 119).

  6. OK, I just realized I misread the paragraph about the 111. It won’t run every half hour during the day. It will run every hour (yuck). That means that some of my suggestions (timing it with the 119, etc.) just don’t make sense. Oh well.

  7. These proposals are both bewildering and disappointing. Bewildered: route 111 covers areas already served by other routes. 66th Ave is already served by route 119, which takes customers to more useful destinations like Swedish and Edmonds Woodway. Back in the day, 188th St used to be served by frequent routes 115/116. This proposal restores service but only at hourly intervals and provides no connection to the LTC. Current customers are better off either 1) walking to 44fh Ave to catch bus #112 or to the mall and catch bus #113.

    Disappointed: route 107 is a primarily point-to-point kinda route. Most riders board at LTC and exit at Boeing. Their commutes just got 15min longer each way.

    1. I can understand why people don’t like the 109 and 107. Neither seems like it is permanent, but an attempt to see if there is any interest in some of those connections.

      But I don’t understand the criticism of the 111. Other than the northern tail, the 111 seems a lot better than the 119. Both serve Swedish (the 119 on one side, the 111 on the other). The 119 serves Edmonds-Woodway High School, while the 111 serves the community college (a much bigger destination). The 111 will have a stop right next to the Swift bus stop while the 119 requires a seven minute walk to make a transfer. Both buses spend way too much time running in low density areas, but the 119 is much longer, and spends a lot more time running in those places.

      The biggest flaw is running the 111 every hour. Buses that run every hour should make have exclusive coverage — otherwise, people will find alternatives. If you are trying to get from Mountlake Terrace to Edmonds CC, then the 111 will save you over 20 minutes (most of that in walking time if you catch the 119). But if the bus only runs every hour, you will probably just take the 119, or some combination that involves a transfer.

      That is what I find disappointing (but understandable, since this is not a major restructure). It seems reasonable to have service to Brier run every hour; likewise service on 188th. But the same is true for most of the 119. Long term I would switch things around, running the 119 every hour, and the 111 every half hour. I would kill off the 188th section (or replace it with a different hourly bus) and have the 119 take over the trips to Brier. The point being that the middle of both routes (Mountlake Terrace to Edmonds) is simply better on the 111.

  8. C-shaped routes aren’t necessarily a bad thing. In some ways they are a good thing. They are especially useful in smaller communities, such as Bellingham, where the 331 ( only goes east for a limited distance before turning north because otherwise it would go into very low-density suburban neighborhoods.

    The way to think of it is that CT created two east-west bus routes, and one north-south bus route, and decided to run all three of these with a single bus. Look at it this way and it makes a lot of sense. You’ll probably have almost nobody ride the entire length, but that’s not the point.

    1. Yeah, and I think it matters how big the ‘C’ is. A small ‘C’ is generally not a good idea. If you can get off the bus, walk a few blocks, then get back on the bus, ridership will suffer as a result (because no one will take a bus between those two points). But in this case the ends of the ‘C’ are so huge, that there will be riders who take the bus the entire route, just to avoid a transfer penalty. For example, this is the only bus that goes to Brier. You can then transfer to a bus that goes to Lynnwood, but it only runs every half hour, and it doesn’t go to Alderwood. That means a three seat ride, and while the last two are relatively frequent (and fast) they aren’t that frequent (not like Third Avenue downtown Seattle frequent). So if you really are trying to go from end to end — Brier to Alderwood — this is your best option, and it is a huge improvement over what existed before.

      Yeah, your point about the size of the community is crucial. A grid only works if you have buses running frequently (to minimize the transfer penalty). Snohomish County doesn’t have that. They do have corridors with frequent service, but they also have buses like this, that run every hour, and your “average” bus runs every half hour.

Comments are closed.