With Snohomish County well into Phase 2 of its pandemic recovery, Community Transit is set to begin restoring its bus service over the next few months. On July 6, CT will bring service levels back to 75% of pre-pandemic trips to accommodate an increased need on heavily-used routes. A 85% restoration will take place in September, followed by a potential full restoration by spring 2021.
Community Transit will also begin collecting fares on all routes on July 1. Drivers will wear face coverings and will be able to wear face shields when passengers are boarding from the front door. The agency is encouraging riders to wear face coverings, but not making them required.
Transit ridership in Snohomish County began to increase in May and is expected to return to high levels as more employers reopen. Retailers have been permitted to reopen for in-store shopping and most national chains have followed suit for their locations in the county.
Community Transit is anticipating a sales tax decline of 16 to 26 percent ($25 million to $40 million) as a result of the COVID-induced economic recession. The September 2020 service expansion, which was slated to have huge boosts for Route 112 and a relocation for Route 109, has been cancelled.
About $300 million in lost funds for 2020 to 2025 would be needed to keep service at pre-pandemic levels, which will largely be filled using the following sources:
- $85.5 million from reserve funds
- $83.4 million from deferred service expansion
- $40.3 million from reducing service to 85% levels
- $39.2 million from the CARES Act
- $33.4 million from capital/operations savings
There is a $26.6 million gap that remains, which would be addressed using other methods. At a recent board meeting, Community Transit staff presented options to cut costs, such as reviewing capital projects for deferment, but took no action.
On top of all of this, the Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station will be closed for six months beginning July 6 due to Link construction. The express routes serving the freeway platforms will not be redirected to the transit center, with a fare-free replacement shuttle offered instead. Route 508 will leave from bus bay 3 and run 7 days a week, with a peak frequency of 7 minutes and mid-day and weekend service capped at hourly levels.
It is weird that they are calling the 508 a shuttle. It runs from Mountlake Terrace to downtown Seattle. A shuttle would run to Lynnwood or Northgate. I would call that an express. Whatever, I guess.
The people who are hurt are those going from Mountlake Terrace to someplace north (Lynnwood, Everett, etc.). There are alternatives though, even if they are slower. The good news is that not that many people take trips like that — about 50 a day. The vast majority of people who use that stop are going to be OK with the replacement. It gets a bit infrequent at night, although that looks quite similar to the new (Covid) schedule. It seems like overall the schedule is quite similar to what exists right now.
Maybe its to indicate the short term nature of the service, whereas an express “route” would run until the next service change? Given the lower ridership number, they may also use different vehicles than normal? Just speculating.
Eh, I guess they are still calling in a route. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Free fares sound excessive for a 13-mile express route. The inconvenience caused by closing a freeway station right next to the transit center is much less than $4.25. Why should people from Edmonds and Lynnwood pay full fare when they’re just a slightly longer distance than people from Mountlake Terrace who pay nothing? Miserly people will simply drive to Mountlake Terrace to get the free bus.
I agree. Now that I think about it, that’s probably why they are calling it a “shuttle”. They are using the label to suggest this is someone inferior, and thus should be free. But it isn’t — this isn’t a shuttle.
For example, if Angle Lake Station was suddenly closed, then it would make a lot of sense to run a free shuttle to SeaTac. Most of the riders (that used to board at Angle Lake) would get on the train there and pay the fare. It would be an inconvenience — an extra step. Furthermore, very few riders would actually get a free ride — they would still end up paying.
But in this case, that is not the case. The vast majority of riders of that old station take the bus from there to downtown. Now they will do exactly the same thing. They will get downtown at pretty much the same time (maybe faster). They will walk about the same distance to the bus stop (maybe shorter). Giving them a free ride is bizarre, given that it is pretty much the same service.
That’s exactly what people would expect: when part of Link is interrupted, there’s a free shuttle in the gap. When the Fremont Bridge closes for the Solstice festival, there’s a free 62 shuttle in the southern part. But an express route from Mountlake Terrace to downtown? That’s not a shuttle and it shouldn’t be free. CT should charge fares and put the freed-up money into local service.
Does the 512 still stop at 145th? If not, the only place for a Mountlake Terrace “shuttle” to go is Lynnwood Transit Center, which would be several miles in the opposite direction.
Still though, I am somewhat surprised to see this route run all day. Before COVID, a typical trip of the 512 would have maybe 1-2 passengers getting on or off at Mountlake Terrace, hardly enough to justify the cost of an entire bus. I could easily imagine a world where the 508 runs rush-hour only, and at all other times, you just have to suck it up and ride a shuttle to Lynnwood in the wrong direction.
As I wrote above, it could go to Northgate. From there you could take the 41.
As far as ridership goes, it is decent. On the 512, it has about 150 headed to Seattle, out of about 2,000 total. On the 511, it has about 250 out of 1,100. So it is extremely peak oriented. What would make the most sense is to run the express buses to downtown during rush hour (when other buses are crowded) and then run a bus to Northgate the rest of the day (when the 41 has enough room). You could skip payment for the shuttle, but of course you pay for the rush hour bus.
The main problem is not that they run the bus downtown. You can argue it isn’t justified (especially outside of rush hour) but it is reasonable. The problem is not charging for it.
Slightly off topic, but has anyone heard if Sound Transit is going to increase nightly and weekend Link service. 30 minute headways are ridiculous. I don’t expect us to go to the previous schedule – but how about 15 minute headways on weekdays and 20 minute headways for weekends and evenings. That shouldn’t be too difficult, right? Why are they resisting?
Only when ridership reaches a point where there are enough “eyes on the train” to deter bad behavior without a security guard on nearly every train.
From the begin restoring link … “As riders return to using transit, they will notice other safety measures that have been implemented, including:
• Encouraging riders to wear face coverings when using transit.
• Requiring drivers to wear face coverings while driving the bus.”
Can someone explain why they only encourage riders to wear masks, but require drivers to wear them? Why don’t they, for example, encourage riders and encourage drivers to wear them? Why the encourage/require distinction?
I imagine it’s because they have a supervision over the driver and not over the passengers. That said, I wish transit providers were more aggressive about mask enforcement, but that’s only really reasonable if we make it easier for all people (not just people who can make orders online) to get masks.
Dunno, Sam, but here’s a guess: Human Resources can’t fire passengers if they don’t? Which kind of means that somebody else has to tell them they can’t ride, which to certain people is the also main reason for fares.
So what’s to do? To fight joblessness, start employing people to hand out masks. In addition to what could be most important duty in the system this next while, which is giving real-time information about sudden changes in schedule and headways.
Perfect work, incidentally, for drivers on “light duty” while recovering from injury. Might also lend itself to volunteers. Or- really saw this in Vancouver BC- truly homeless people trying to earn tips. OR-Sam, you could actually have a FOLLOWING! Website and all.
But my suspicion is that here’s what’s the real problem: https://www.tpr.org/post/officials-condemn-bexar-gop-chairs-claims-covid-19-democratic-hoax-hurt-trump
With a “flechette” barrage of tweets from both 1600 Pennsylvania and Mara Lago saying “Hey you liberals, think Tulsa 1920!” Best answer? “Like we already don’t?”
Mark Dublin
Drivers are employees and can be disciplined for not wearing masks. Requiring passengers to wear masks would require having a security guard on every bus and ejecting people who don’t wear a mask, and would cause political/equity controversies that politicians are sensitive to. And it’s entirely possible that somebody forgets their mask or it breaks, and they haven’t had an opportunity to obtain another, but they have an essential trip or need to get home,
Florida cities require people to wear masks. They use the words require and mandatory. They didn’t say they are encouraging residents to wear masks, they said they are requiring them to. Tampa and Orlando are “requiring” residents to wear masks. ““The only way to stop this is to wear a mask. That’s the only way,” some dude in the ny post article said.
In related news, Washington state saw 624 new covid cases yesterday, the highest number since the beginning of May. And the trend line of new cases per day in the state for the last two has been steadily increasing. But let’s get people back on transit, and let’s make masks optional.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/19/florida-cities-make-masks-mandatory-after-coronavirus-surge/
Correction, 624 is the highest daily new case Covid19 count in state history.
Sam:
The mode of transportation is not the issue; it’s where people are going and how they’re acting at those places. People should be wearing masks whenever they are out in public but since there are reasons why someone can’t wear a mask and, as with most medical issues, those reasons are invisible to the rest of us, we have to rely on people’s willingness to do it for the common good.
It’s either that or we shut down everything entirely until we have a vaccine. I think that’s more effective against the disease but I have no illusions that people will go along with it much longer (many more will wear a mask).
While stopping at a gas station in Granite Falls on the way to a hike this morning, I could not help noticing that not one person in the store (except me) was wearing a mask. Not the cashier, and not the customers either. Nor was there any plastic shield to protect the cashier from the breath of the customers.
It’s like as soon as you cross to the other side of the Clinton-Trump dividing line (just past Lake Stevens, as of 2016), a mask is seen as a symbol of the liberals, therefore, they can’t wear one, coronavirus be damned.
The fact that masks have become a partisan issue is downright sad. Conservatives claim to be pro-business. Mask-wearing allows businesses to remain open without people getting sick. Why is this so difficult?
Sometimes, I imagine a world where people knew about how viruses worked back in biblical times, so that the “word of god” could say that when there’s a deadly disease going around, “thou shall wear masks indoors”. Maybe then, things would have been different.
Here’s an idea for local transit agencies. Pay transit employees to go to all the various transit centers and busy downtown transit stops to hand out masks to transit users waiting for the bus or train. I’ve heard of various organizations stockpiling masks to give out to those in need. I hope transit agencies were also ordering masks in bulk specifically to give to riders without masks.
I disagree. I think that the MAGA Hats are simply fulfilling Mother Nature’s plan for them to be bundles of kindling for the coming conflagration when SARS-CoV-2, having mastered stealth, starts channelling its inner monster.
While some areas of the country are seeing genuine rises in COVID19 cases, outside of Yakima county I’m skeptical that we’re seeing anything more than more widespread and effective testing here in WA state. UW Virology[1] has reported well under 2% positive PCR (active infection) test rates for at least a week, and state-reported positive test rates are in the 3-5% range with King County substantially lower[2]. WHO recommends re-opening if positive test rates remain below 5%[3]. Arizona, by contrast, has gone from 5% positive rate in early May to almost 20% now despite a huge increase in testing[4], showing they’re in trouble while we’re doing pretty well.
[1] http://depts.washington.edu/labmed/covid19/
[2] https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/NovelCoronavirusOutbreak2020COVID19/DataDashboard
[3] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/testing-positivity
[4] https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php
Rising cases, even from increased testing, is still very concerning, especially considering everything’s been shut down for the last three months.
This really puts the size difference between CT and Metro in stark contrast. CT is predicting about $60 million per year over the next five years, while Metro is predicting $200 million per year over the next three years.
Regardless of transit system, this raises the huge question: what are we going to do about it? Seattle’s leaders haven’t talked about any of the new progressive taxes going towards backfilling transit—and I don’t want to make this about Seattle and Metro since we’re talking CT here—but what sayeth SnoCo and its cities? Starting next year, with any luck, CT will be more visible to north Seattle riders once routes go to Northgate, making that a more regional question.
They may have to truncate all expresses at Northgate after all; they can save an enormous amount of money not running downtown. And it may be “doable” now since ridership is likely to be much lower. I was worried that truncating everything would overtax Link, but that’s not likely to be an issue now.
I’m sure that Snohomans would prefer to stay on one bus all the way; it’s one less vehicle to be a vector. But they really may not be able to afford running all the 400’s downtown.
With you there Tom.
The problems are:
a) How much time do we have to make the case?
b) How much money will this actually save Community Transit?
c) How many choice riders will Community Transit lose as a result?
Happy to help start working on answers to that.
And the limited layover space at Northgate transit center, and the streets between it and the freeway are at capacity. There’s room for a few buses there simultaneously but not a lot, and it doesn’t make sense to build more because they’d only be there a few years.
Hot loop them at Northgate. The 400’s are peak hour expresses; they simply don’t need to lay over there. If the drivers need a break have them stop at Lynnwood TC and take it on the non-revenue leg.
We were all arguing about this eight months ago, and I admit to being strongly in the “there won’t be enough room on the trains camp”. But things have changed; downtown isn’t going to come back with the same employment levels, especially in retail and services. Workers in those sectors are the most reliable transit riders.
So there will be more room on the trains, and truncating the expresses is a great way for CT to save lots of money while still providing full service.
Hot loop them at Northgate. The 400’s are peak hour expresses; they simply don’t need to lay over there. If the drivers need a break have them stop at Lynnwood TC and take it on the non-revenue leg.
Exactly. Laying over makes sense when it is the end of your line, and you need a break before going the other way. For example, the 75 is connected to the 31/32 to form a long route that takes about 90 minutes to complete. The driver then takes a break at Northgate, before driving the other way.
But these buses wouldn’t do that. These buses dead-head, they don’t turn around and resume service. Typically the buses take less than a half hour to complete their run. The dead-head is usually fast as well. The logical layover space is up north, since that is where the next run will begin.
I can only think of a couple minor issues. One is overall crowding at the bus stops. I don’t see that as a huge issue, though. Even though there are a lot of different bus routes, there aren’t that many buses per hour coming from Snohomish County. Metro is sending some buses there (with the restructure) but the 41 is no longer serving it. I don’t see it being too crowded — at worse there is a bit of a lineup. If they do as I suggested a while ago (make the area an off-board payment zone) it would greatly speed things up.
In the evening, an approach like this could result in an inconsistent schedule. Traffic southbound is often an issue. However, a bus will be in the HOV lane most of the time, and my guess is it could be timed fairly well. I don’t see it as being any worse than what happens if a rider picks up the bus at the north end of downtown. Timing the bus is more of an issue with a bus like the 412, that runs twice a day, versus the 402, that runs every ten minutes. But again, there aren’t that many buses like the 412 (per hour) so if they need waiting space to better time their routes, it could be found. This isn’t actually layover space — the driver would never leave the bus. Finding space for a bus to simply wait is not that difficult (since you don’t need comfort stations). This also assumes that a bus couldn’t simply wait at the transit center a couple minutes.
Overall, I don’t see many issues that couldn’t be overcome with a little bit of effort. I doubt it would be worse than the alternative — painful cuts to service somewhere.
If ridership is down, CT can cancel runs. If it’s down 50%, it could cancel most of its runs, starting with the ones that are most duplicative with ST. But that’s assuming we know what future ridership would be.
Mike, yes it’s true that if ridership drops in proportion to revenue loss, then a straightforward cut in service is the easiest solution. But if ridership falls enough to make truncation possible (30%? 40%?) but less than revenues drop , then truncation of the expresses is a way to bridge the gap in funding.
Again, this assumes that commuting to downtown Seattle will plummet.
Not “will plummet”. It already plummeted. “[W]ill continue at a low rate” is more accurate.
Replied in yesterday’s open thread re Metro.
The initial proposal for Northgate Link is to truncate the ST Express routes at Northgate except the 510, but continue the Community Transit routes to downtown. In the 2008 recession CT offered two alternatives: keep the downtown expresses as-is, or significantly reduce them and put the money into a more frequent local network. The majority of feedback was to keep the express routes. Snohomish County residents are more commuter-minded than King County residents when it comes to transit; the expresses are what they see as the best value for their tax dollars. I doubt those attitudes will completely reverse this time around. Taking Link from Northgate will be enticing because it’s more reliable that getting stuck in a freeway backup at least once a week, but I can still see some people being afraid of giving up all express-bus alternatives before Lynnwood Link opens.
It is one thing to favor one destination (Seattle) over another (trips within Snohomish County). It is another to favor one type of trip (direct) versus another (connection to Link). It also depends on the nature of the cutbacks. For example, consider someone who lives on 100th and Edmonds Way, in Edmonds. They have two buses within walking distance, the 130 and 416. The 416 is an express, running 4 times a day to Seattle. The 130 runs between downtown Edmonds and Aurora Village somewhere between every half hour to an hour. Let’s say they have the following three choices in terms of cutbacks:
1) Run the 416 only three times a day.
2) Run the 130 every hour.
3) Keep the schedules the same, but send the 416 to Northgate.
It may be that given the choice, people much prefer the second choice over the first. They would rather live with the bad service to Edmonds or Aurora Village than screw up their commute to downtown Seattle. But it is quite possible that choice number 3 is by far the most popular. It doesn’t require much change. You still have as many buses, running roughly at the same time.
The same sort of idea applies to all of the express routes. Truncating at Northgate would result in a considerable savings without hurting frequency. The alternative is likely much worse.
It’s worse than that. It’s not just freed-up money. If I’m a Snohomish taxpayer and rider of Swift, the 130, the 105, or any other local route, I’m paying an extraordinary subsidy to one lucky express route, which is unprecedented in Community Transit’s history. I can’t think of any precedent in Metro or ST either. If Link breaks and there’s a long-distance shuttle, it’s still stopping every 1-2 miles like Swift and most trips are between the intermediate stops.
Well I AM a CT district taxpayer and this “shuttle” plan, frankly, pisses me off. It’s not a shuttle; it’s an ad hoc express and the riders from MT should be paying a fare for the service.
In response, I suppose I should send an email to my SnoCo Council rep, Stephanie Wright, who also sits on the CT board. She’s been very responsive to such communications in the past, both for CT and SnoCo matters. I think I’ll start there.
In the bigger picture, CT can just about throw out their most recent 6-year TIP, particularly as it relates to their capital program. Their bus base expansion and administration building redo’s ($70 over 5 years if I’m recalling things correctly) will most certainly be deferred for now. Back to the drawing board I guess. Hopefully there will be a Democratic administration in DC next year and Moscow Mitch will be sitting in the minority seat once again (or just be sent packing) and significant federal assistance/funding for transit materializes.
Tlsgwm,
You are taking the right course of action. Rarely does the CT Board hear from anyone but the union and one activist named Joe.
Also I think the admin building construction planning work that CT Board committees are moving forward on is tone-deaf to the emergency needs of the riders & operators right now. Frankly it’s bordering on “All Lives Matter” insensitivity. But CT does need to be ready to accept on the spot stimulus dollars if another package on par with TIGER Grants does come out of Congress.
Thanks;
JOE
Well said Tlsgwm. However, I wouldn’t expect all that much in new transit spending from a Democratic administration. Some, for sure, but not bundles.
“Modern Monetary Theory” which is academic-speak for “screw the public debt holders” only works so long as Financial Repression is possible. When people grow tired of paying banks to keep their money, they’ll put it in art and property so they have something nice to look at in their penury.
Any Rand was a narcissistic moral monster, but she wasn’t entirely wrong that there is a time when investors say “screw it” and Go Galt. It has happened many times in the past.
And, strangely, it’s the (mildly) “Socialist” party in America that is more aware of that reality than the “Business” party. So as the economy comes back, there will be a shift from deficit- to tax-funding for government. There will not be trillions to spend on government in the coming years; choices will be mandatory, and I’d say that increased Federal transit funding is likely to be overlooked.
Who is paying for it, CT or ST? It might be on ST’s dime since they are causing the disruption due to construction.
It is a Sound Transit bus. I’m pretty sure Sound Transit is paying for it. My guess is CT has nothing to do with it. This is a Sound Transit issue.
(I think the confusion is simply that Martin tacked on a relevant bit of info about a ST situation on an essay that was otherwise only about CT).
Thanks for the clarification about which agency is picking up the dime on this ad hoc “shuttle”. Nevertheless, Mike Orr’s point about fares is still valid.
Ah, I saw the 500 number and I thought, “That’s strange, why isn’t CT putting in the 400 series?” I assumed it’s because it was temporary and 500 must be its special category, like Metro’s 600, 700, and 800. But of course 502-599 is Sound Transit’s range.
That just shifts the blame to Sound Transit. A free fare still seems like excessive mitigation for losing a freeway stop. But since ST routes will be truncated at Northgate next year as far as we know, it will only last a year.
It’s just a 4.5 month closure: https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/changes-affect-my-ride/mountlake-terrace-freeway-station-closure
Dunno, Sam, but here’s a guess: Human Resources can’t fire passengers if they don’t? Which kind of means that somebody else has to tell them they can’t ride, which to certain people is the also main reason for fares.
So what’s to do? To fight joblessness, start employing people to hand out masks. In addition to what could be most important duty in the system this next while, which is giving real-time information about sudden changes in schedule and headways.
Perfect work, incidentally, for drivers on “light duty” while recovering from injury. Might also lend itself to volunteers. Or- really saw this in Vancouver BC- truly homeless people trying to earn tips. OR-Sam, you could actually have a FOLLOWING! Website and all.
But my suspicion is that here’s what’s the real problem: https://www.tpr.org/post/officials-condemn-bexar-gop-chairs-claims-covid-19-democratic-hoax-hurt-trump
With a “flechette” barrage of tweets from both 1600 Pennsylvania and Mara Lago saying “Hey you liberals, think Tulsa 1920!” Best answer? “Like we already don’t?”
Mark Dublin
Did I just get same comment printed TWICE? Has the “Looks Like You Already Said That” mechanism joined the rest of Communications in general on a Socially-spaced bus-ride to Hell? Sam, does this one have your tracks all over it?
The Regrettably Real Mark Dublin
A few thoughts here:
1) You guys in the comments really need to be getting these comments over to the CT Board. Bad. I can put the folks who testify to the CT Board in the online era in two categories: The Union and Transit Joe. Please fix. The next CT Board Meeting is July 2, 2020 – 3:00 p.m. Watch https://www.communitytransit.org/meetings for the agenda to come online by say Friday the 26th before 4 PM.
2) I can assure you it’s a mini-dogfight every time to get CT to let me turn my recorder on. Zoom has wisely or not given the “host” that power, and I can understand why since Zoom wasn’t built/coded for government meetings. But CT has a Board Chair in Jon Nehring and a watchdog on the growl to get you guys the news and change CT Boardroom culture to one we can trust because transparency builds trust and trust breeds confidence and confidence regains ridership.
We’re winning together. For America. For Mother Earth. For the CT team.
I can’t speak for my wingman Jon but me personally: If you appreciate this primary source news, use it. If you appreciate online public comment periods, use them or lose them. That’s all I ask.
3) I believe we need to have the conversation about maybe truncating all CT routes at the northern terminus of Link to cover the financial gap. The conversation based on the potential savings plus potential lost riders. That would take some guts and right now, we need guts in public transit leadership.
A few general thoughts:
1) You guys in the comments really need to be getting these comments over to the CT Board. Bad. I can put the folks who testify to the CT Board in the online era in two categories: The Union and Transit Joe. Please fix. The next CT Board Meeting is July 2, 2020 – 3:00 p.m. Watch https://www.communitytransit.org/meetings for the agenda to come online by say Friday the 26th before 4 PM.
2) I can assure you some CT staff do resist being recorded via Zoom. Zoom has wisely or not given the “host” that power, and I can understand why since Zoom wasn’t built/coded for government meetings. But CT has a Board Chair in Jon Nehring as my wingman and a watchdog on the growl to defeat staff opacity to get you guys the news and change CT Boardroom culture to one we can trust because transparency builds trust and trust breeds confidence and confidence regains ridership.
Me personally: If you appreciate this primary source news, use it. If you appreciate online public comment periods, use them or lose them. That’s all I ask.
3) I believe we need to have the conversation about maybe truncating all CT routes at the northern terminus of Link to cover the financial gap. The conversation based on the potential savings plus potential lost riders. That would take some guts and right now, we need guts in public transit leadership. We are far from out of this crisis.
Not too sure if this comment is landing in the s–m folder so going to try one last time.
1) You guys in the comments really need to be getting these comments over to the CT Board. Bad. I can put the folks who testify to the CT Board in the online era in two categories: The Union and Transit Joe. Please fix. The next CT Board Meeting is July 2, 2020 – 3:00 p.m. Watch communitytransit.org/meetings for the agenda to come online by say Friday the 26th before 4 PM.
2) I can assure you there is some staff pushback to video-recording CT meetings. But CT has a Board Chair in Jon Nehring as my wingman and a watchdog on the growl in me to get you guys as fellow citizens the news and change CT Boardroom culture to one we can trust because transparency builds trust and trust breeds confidence and confidence regains ridership.
Me personally: If you appreciate this primary source news, use it. If you appreciate online public comment periods, use them or lose them. That’s all I ask.
3) I believe we need to have the conversation about maybe truncating all CT commuter routes at the northern terminus of Link to cover the financial gap. The conversation based on the potential savings plus potential lost riders. That would take some guts and right now, we need guts in public transit leadership. We are far from out of this crisis. Frankly looking at CT’s #s, one could develop the perception a CT Prop Two is possible for 2024.