Metro Update on Ridership Recovery and Service Planning

48 Replies to “Metro Update on Ridership Recovery and Service Planning”

1. Thanks for finding and sharing this presentation!

   I think it’s important to remember that ST also showed a significant increase in returning riders between 2022 and 2023 when looking at annual totals.

   Since ST releases monthly data, it’s possible to see more recent ridership statistics. It appears that starting later in 2023, the increase in monthly boardings comparing one year to the next has started to taper off on ST. It would be interesting to see if Metro is having a similar tapering of demand.

   Does Metro publish monthly boardings?

   1. This is available as NTD data
      https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-adjusted-data-release

      KCM metrobus:
      19Q1: 24,965,482
      23Q1: 14,880,705
      24Q1: 17,104,156

      KCM trolleybus:
      19Q1: 4,547,102
      23Q1: 2,558,227
      24Q1: 2,860,785

      And just for fun:
      Monorail:
      19Q1: 296,787
      23Q1: 364,585
      24Q1: 381,464

   2. There’s also the Metro Rider Dashboard, which provides data broken down by route:

      https://kingcounty.gov/legacy/depts/transportation/metro/about/accountability-center/rider-dashboard.aspx

2. #5 and #21 need to be split. A holdup anywhere along that 20 mile route totally messes up the #5 which we at one time used. That along with lawless behavior has meant ‘no more’, and a lot of former users say the same thing.

3. Metro routes from Issaquah to Seattle are down. Probably work from home, more Eastside workers switching to Eastside employers to avoid the commute, and concerns about taking transit in Seattle.

   Although it is a ST route the biggest complaint about the 554 is the pointless circuitous route once it reaches Seattle, and the same in Issaquah. The 554 is an EXPRESS. Hit a few large park and rides in Issaquah, Eastgate, Mercer Island (these two stops take a few minutes), and then go straight to downtown Seattle rather than a milk run through odd parts of Seattle that can be sketch in the dark or off peak.

   I think ridership on the 554 will really rebound when it is a one seat ride to Bellevue Way. The Metro routes to Mercer Island once East Link opens across the lake will remain weak.

   P.S. I was surprised by the sharp increase in micro-transit ridership. Anyone know why?

   1. > Although it is a ST route the biggest complaint about the 554 is the pointless circuitous route once it reaches Seattle, and the same in Issaquah. The 554 is an EXPRESS. Hit a few large park and rides in Issaquah, Eastgate, Mercer Island (these two stops take a few minutes), and then go straight to downtown Seattle rather than a milk run through odd parts of Seattle that can be sketch in the dark or off peak.

      It just heads up through downtown then turns around, there’s not much to cut without removing destinations. Or are you talking about chinatown/rainier minor detour, those were added when the rainier freeway bus station was closed for the judkins park light rail station.

      > I think ridership on the 554 will really rebound when it is a one seat ride to Bellevue Way. The Metro routes to Mercer Island once East Link opens across the lake will remain weak.

      I personally don’t use it that often and there are other proponents who are hopeful for the restructures. I’m not so optimistic on bus restructures that cut out direct access to seattle — it seems to quite kill bus ridership with the additional transfer aka for example the 255 of kirkland to uw. the 554 to bellevue is probably enough of a draw that I’m cautiously okay with it.

   2. Metro felt that at least one route must serve the Rainier/i-90 transfer point when the freeway station closed. The 554 was chosen so that the higher-ridership 550 could remain on the freeway. It was only going to be for a couple years but East Link got delayed.

      How the restructured 554 does depends on how many Issaquahites want to go to Bellevue vs Seattle. They’re different transit markets so different sets of riders. One is gaining; one is losing. But they’re not losing much. The transfer walk at South Bellevue is less than 1.5 minutes. In return they get twice the frequency on the 554, three times the frequency on Link, all-day express service to downtown Bellevue, and all-day express routes to Mercer Island. Currently there’s only a peak express to Bellevue, and at other times the 271 takes an hour, and is hourly weekend evenings. So Issaquah will get a lot more transit choices, in exchange for a transfer to Seattle.

4. ” The 20 busiest routes were 2, 7, 8, 14, 36, 40, 44, 45, 60, 62, 70, 160, 372, and the A, B, C, D, E, F, and H RapidRide Lines.”

   Wow, this hardly overlaps at all with the routes I ride regularly. The only one is the 62. My others routes are the 10, 11, 49, 131, 132, 226, and probably soon 221. The next runner-up is the C, since West Seattle is where I go to get away for recreation (Junction, Lincoln Lark, Alki, Schmitz Preserve Park).

   Do other people find this list matches their trips?

   1. I use the 7, 8, 36, 4, 70, D and E so it broadly matches.

   2. I ride the B quite a lot. I don’t ride the others regularly. But I’ve been on every one of those 20 busiest at least once.

   3. > 10, 11, 49, 131, 132

      As a side note, probably one thing weighing the numbers down is that the routes you ride are mostly “branched ones” aka 131+132 combined would be 4k or probably in the top 20. Routes 10, 11, 49 are shared on the pike/pine portion as well.

      1. Yeah. The 3/4 are a good example of that. It is basically one route (similar to the 2) in that the vast majority of riders use it on the shared section. If they just got rid of the 4 then ridership would suddenly increase on the 3 and it would be in this top twenty.

         Through-routing buses could also be considered one bus (which would change the numbers). Ultimately this sort of thing doesn’t matter. You have to look at ridership per segment and then consider how much service it is getting to get meaningful metrics (ridership per mile, ridership per hour of service, etc.). For some buses (like the A, E and 7) a lot of the ridership is spread out and fairly isolated from other routes. But much of our system doesn’t work that way.

   4. I ride the 36 pretty much exclusively. I always have fellow passengers but usually get a seat.

      A thought just occurred to me though, do the public school kids using metro routes actually get tracked? I wasn’t really paying attention but I was riding yesterday when the dismissal bell rang. Seemed like most entered through the backdoor and didn’t boop. I would guess whether they are supposed to tap in or not that many do not in practice so might be consistently undercounted.

      1. I doubt it. I asked about policy when students boarded my bus (this was on the 56) without paying. Was I supposed to guess based on appearance and press “Youth” or just select “Non Payment”? The guess was “Non payment”…

         Back in the day, Students were issued ORCA cards and tapped but as far as I can tell, that no longer is the case.

      2. Some transit systems use automatic passenger counters at the doors even for buses independent of taps. i’m not sure about king county metro specifically though

5. “Ridership growth by area” (page 12) is interesting. The biggest growth is roughly around the route 8 corridor. The next-biggest splotch is the U-District.

   Smaller splotches are along the 44 corridor, central Fremont, Roosevelt, and Northgate.

   Then smaller ones at the West Seattle Junction, Beacon Hill, Mt Baker, downtown Bellevue, and the airport.

   Then smaller ones in Redmond and south Redmond.

   1. I didn’t include that chart in the article because it’s not normalized to population or previous ridership, so it’s more of a map of population density around transit than a map of relative ridership changes. But the use of a hexagonal “grid” across the service area is neat to see.

6. That fleet availability number is abysmal. Fleet size is about ~1400, which means this is about a 30% spare ratio.

   Target ratio used to be 18%. If our very expensive, very high tech buses come with a 12pt loss in spare ratio versus what we bought 30 years ago, this is a real problem.

   1. The problem is supply-chain bottlenecks; Metro can’t get repair parts on time. That on top of the maintenance-worker shortage meant that half the buses were sidelined the past couple years waiting for maintenance checks. parts, and/or repair labor.

7. Did anyone notice on the Urbanist’s Metro Labor Pinch post that 9% of Metro’s drivers are on long-term leave? I suspected that played a part in their labor struggles. I didn’t think it was all due to hiring issues.

   1. Do you think there’d be more staff available if they weren’t allowed to go on leave?

   2. What is “long-term leave”? It sounds like a leave of absence or medical leave for longer than a month or two. Surely Metro can’t have that many people in that situation.

   3. I think Nathan was reading something into my comment that wasn’t there. I was just repeating something interesting I read. I do think 9% sounds a bit high. I believe it, but 9% of drivers is a lot. My guess is that percentage was much lower before 2020.

      1. Sam, I’m not sure what you’re implying, either. I was hoping to understand what you think the specific impact of that statistic is on staffing, and why it’s more notable than, say, resignations. Maybe you have some insight into why Metro would publish that number?

8. I wish Metro would take a page from ST and reference everything back to 2019 and pre-COVID. Comparing to last year might help highlight short term trends, but comparing 2023 to 2021? Why?

   And comparing every year back to 2020 but not showing 2019 too? Why? A complete picture would show 2019 too.

   And ridership only at 62% of pre-COVID while the system is operating at 83% is clearly a problem. That represents not only very anemic ridership recovery, but operating a large system without correspondingly high ridership has got to create a budget hole for Metro. Even with Metro’s poor farebox recovery.

   But hey, maybe with the restructures Metro will benefit from getting increased ridership via Link transfers. Link to the rescue?

   1. A comparison with 2019 would be interesting, but it would also be flawed. The rise of work-from-home following Covid-19 represents a paradigm shift, so comparing current ridership numbers to before that change is not a good indicator of relative popularity. Certainly the point about fair box recovery is valid, but that is far from the only relevant metric when evaluating public transportation’s performance or societal value.

      It will take several years before we have the data to make meaningful year to year comparisons of Metro/ST’s ability to attract ridership in this new era.

      1. Comparing Metro ridership from 2019 (or 2018 which was stronger) to 2023 needs to account for U. Dist. to Northgate Link opening. At the same time, when comparing Link ridership from 2019 to 2023 one has to factor in Northgate Link opening, probably the strongest readership section, and compare Link ridership in 2023 to ST pre-pandemic estimates which shows transit ridership is down across the board on all modes.

         As to Alex H’s point, I don’t know how long Metro waits before it makes changes post pandemic based on ridership, or how long it can afford to. Is it realistic to think poor performing routes will suddenly blossom into high ridership routes? Or that the peak commuter will return if frequency is maintained on those routes? How much does Metro spend to maintain a “grid”?

         More likely those peak commuter routes that are performing so poorly — and many have been cut or frequency reduced — will likely continue to decline, and the Metro routes that are doing well will continue to do well because those are riders who must use Metro, which is why ridership is strong non-peak. Metro and the KC council have indicated “equity” will allocate more service to those routes, both based on income and ridership, because in many cases they go hand in hand. Further truncation as Link opens to Lynnwood and across Lake Washington and to Redmond should reduce Metro hours, but at the same time the fare splitting between ST and Metro (53% to 47% I believe) may actually reduce Metro farebox recovery per rider or per mile.

         To what extent riders in North Seattle will object to funding going south, or taxpayers on the eastside who receive less service than they pay for, who knows, but I doubt it, at least on the eastside whose mantra today about transit is out of sight out of mind with the decline in the commuter. So that may help Metro by moving service from the eastside to equity areas although some of those equity areas south are very expensive to serve per rider/mile.

      2. “Is it realistic to think poor performing routes will suddenly blossom into high ridership routes?”

         The poorest-performing Seattle routes were deleted in the several restructures between 2009 and 2016. What’s left is the better-performing routes and the more-needed coverage. South King County went through a similar transformation a bit later. North Kirkland had a restructure; I think when the 255 was truncated in 2020. Bellevue and Redmond are waiting for the East Link restructure.

      3. “Further truncation as Link opens to Lynnwood and across Lake Washington and to Redmond should reduce Metro hours”

         Not as much as you might think. The big truncations were U-Link and Northgate Link with the 71/72/73X and the 41 and most of the Shoreline/North Seattle peak expresses. I-90 is primarily served by Sound Transit. The 212-218 are peak only so not that many service hours, and most of those will be recycled to Mercer Island expresses, so keeping 2/3 of the routes and expanding them to all-day. 520 is mostly Sound Transit, and the 255 and 270 (271) will be retained. The remaining major non-ST truncations coming up are Community Transit in Snohomish County.

      4. I don’t know how long Metro waits before it makes changes post pandemic based on ridership, or how long it can afford to.

         Metro has made numerous changes because of the post-pandemic patterns. You can see this with the various express routes that are now cancelled. But even with buses that remain you can tell they don’t run as often during rush hour. This is what I was getting at with my other comment. If you look at the full system evaluation (https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/accountability/pdf/2019/system-evaluation.pdf) you can see all that. But you can’t easily see that by just looking at a route.

         Is it realistic to think poor performing routes will suddenly blossom into high ridership routes?

         Routes are merely part of the overall network. If the network changes then the route performance will change. For example I expect the RapidRide B to get a lot more riders once Link goes across the lake. But bus restructures change the nature of things as well. A route may change or the routes around it might change. Service levels make a big difference as well. A route that might not do well could easily reach a tipping point if service levels are decent. Then there is the neighborhood as well. By and large, Seattle bus routes are doing much better than they were in the past because Seattle has a lot more density. The same is true in several suburban areas. As areas become more dense I could see a mediocre bus get a lot better ridership.

         Or that the peak commuter will return if frequency is maintained on those routes?

         There isn’t much to maintain. The first thing they did during the recovery is cut excess frequency on peak routes. Are you wondering what would happen if they started running buses every three minutes down Lake City Way again? First of all they don’t have the money or drivers (some other bus routes would be cut) and secondly you would not see a huge increase because service levels from the 522/322 are pretty good (roughly 7.5 minute combined frequency). Improving frequency leads to more riders but there are diminishing returns (the relationship is a curve, not a straight line).

         In contrast increasing frequency on buses running every half hour or fifteen minutes would likely result in a considerable increase in ridership.

         How much does Metro spend to maintain a “grid”?

         Huh? A grid is just a pattern. In general it is pattern that saves money, rather than costs money. Do you have an example in mind?

         So that may help Metro by moving service from the eastside to equity areas although some of those equity areas south are very expensive to serve per rider/mile.

         Yes, and that is the problem (although a lot of the Eastside doesn’t perform well either). In general though it is classic ridership/coverage problem, but with an equity twist. It is quite likely that if you want to help the most low income riders, you focus on high ridership routes. Run buses like the A, E, 7, 8, 44 and 372 a lot more often. Some of these buses pick up a lot of wealthy people, but they often pick up a lot of low income people as well. The other way to spend service hours is providing a lifeline to a handful of low income people in areas that are expensive to serve. There is no “right way” to balance ridership versus coverage (even when it comes to equity).

         My biggest complaint with the system is the inefficiency. The restructure for Lynnwood Link has a lot of flaws. The one for the RapidRide G is terrible. The system can (and should) be made a lot better. I have lost faith in the Metro planners, and think the best solution is to hire an outside firm (like Jarrett Walker’s) to basically do a total make-over.

   2. You can still find Metro’s old numbers online. For example, this is right before the pandemic: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/accountability/reports/2020/system-evaluation-attachment-a. Of course a lot of routes change, which is why it gets tricky. But reports like that give a far more detailed look at the various routes. You can see ridership per service hour, passenger miles per platform hour as well as things like service changes or how express versions of particular routes did. This is the most recent one: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/about/data-and-reports/2023/system-evaluation.pdf. The numbers were very low then, so it isn’t that useful. I don’t when they will release the next report.

      Same goes for Sound Transit. They used to release Service Implementation Plans (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf) that had a bunch of useful information. Unfortunately they don’t seem to do that anymore, and we are stuck with the “dashboard” which is up to date, but contains a lot less information.

   3. I wish Metro would take a page from ST and reference everything back to 2019 and pre-COVID.

      Actually they do: https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/depts/transportation/metro/about/accountability-center/rider-dashboard. That goes back to January 2019. You can see the system as a whole on the “Ridership Impact” tab. You can also select an individual route on that tab and see what it has done over time. If you go to the “My Route” you can compare this month with the same month last year or any year going back to 2019.

      So yeah, you’re are just going to have to find another reason to complain about Metro.

9. There need to be dedicated routes to get residents from Auburn (population 84,000) to downtown Tacoma (population 220,000), which is the nearest city, similar to the 400 series buses offered by Community Transit from their southern suburbs into Seattle. If Sound Transit won’t consider this a viable route, Metro needs to cover it, or needs to remove Auburn from the Metro service and taxing area. Currently, we have train service 3 trips per day, which misses many commuters including myself; and indirect service via Federal Way with VERY poorly timed connections.

   FWIW, having now used the Metro & ST services for several months to get to work in Tacoma from Auburn Station, I will be voting no on any and all future tax measures for transit, unless and until Metro starts prioritizing outer-ring suburbs at the same level Seattle and Bellevue are prioritized.

   Also, FWIW, I am aware of Move Seattle. The Move Seattle property tax is heavily supported by businesses located in Seattle… which are directly and indirectly funded by the clients and employees of those businesses who are frequently located well outside the City limits. I work hard to source architects, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, landscape architects, etc, to keep the money that my clients (ALL South Sound) spend in our own communities, not subsidizing Seattle services that do not benefit the residents and taxpayers of the South Sound. I will assemble a team entirely within (253), whenever possible. I am often unable to build complete project teams without involving multiple disciplines staffing the project from Seattle.

   1. You have it backwards. Transit is far more efficient in the city. For the same amount of money you can move way more people in Seattle than you can Auburn. The county essentially subsidizes places with low ridership and/or high costs (like Auburn). Sound Transit runs poorly performing buses because it is willing to spend a lot more money on poorly performing transit. You can definitely make a case for a bus from Tacoma to Auburn, but it would have a very high subsidy per rider. Given that (and the fact that Tacoma is not in King County) it makes sense as an ST route. Even in Auburn Metro has more cost effective routes.

      The Move Seattle property tax is heavily supported by businesses located in Seattle… which are directly and indirectly funded by the clients and employees of those businesses who are frequently located well outside the City limits..

      Again, that is a backwards perspective. Cities subsidize rural and suburban areas. They are just more efficient. Rural and suburban areas are also highly dependent on cities, not the other way around. If Auburn collapsed it would be sad, but Seattle would be just fine. If Seattle collapsed then Auburn would soon look like East Saint Louis.

   2. Move Seattle is for transportation capital projects. It’s not just transit lanes, but also street maintenance and sidewalks. Auburn and other cities also have this in their core budget and/or levies.

      The levy for additional bus runs in Seattle is a different one, Transit Now. That’s a sales tax. It may have a different name now.

10. Ideally, and no expense spared, I would like to see something that connects the Seattle Center, Westlake, Pioneer Square/Stadiums, and the Waterfront. It could be a giant loop. Definitely not a bus route, maybe a monorail. Not sure what the mode or technology should be. But a waterfront shuttle or extended route seems kinda rinky dink. It will be a world-renown tourist attraction, and popular new public transit route.

11. Metro’s idea that the peak period recovery is lagging looks like a bit of an inaccurate spin. According to the chart, the highest growth in riders by far occurred during the pm peak, followed by the late am peak and 0900-1100 hours. I would suggest that percentages don’t ride buses- actual numbers ride buses.

    1. You mean this chart: https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-47.png? It is a confusing document because it looks at Fall 2021 and not at pre-pandemic numbers. So for example the 4:00 PM ridership went from about 5,000 riders to 7,000 riders. Fair enough. But what was it before?

       I’m not sure what the percent change represents either. I assume it is just the percent increase from 2021 to 2023. But that doesn’t add up. At 9:00 ridership went from roughly 3,000 to 4,000. Yet ridership also jumped almost 50%. It seems possible that this is the percent of ridership compared to before the pandemic but that doesn’t add up either. Ridership is about 80% of what it was, and yet none of the periods show anything over 50%. It is confusing, and I’m sure what to make of it.

    2. @Bill Bryant,

       “ looks like a bit of an inaccurate spin.”

       Ya, “spin”.

       There appears to be a lot of spin in those Metro charts. Whenever you see charts that compare 2023 to 2021, or charts that show all years EXCEPT 2019 (the most important one), you can bet there is some spin going on. User beware.

       Metro should just put the facts out there in a clear and concise manner and let the chips fall where they fall.

       And if Metro’s focus right now is equity and social justice, and not transit performance, then fine. They should be clear and up front about that too. There is nothing wrong with equity and social justice, but success will be measured differently if that is Metro’s goal and purpose for being.

12. Two people in the past week have mentioned Tacoma as a major magnet for South King County residents. One wanting an express from Auburn, and the other better access from Burien. How much is Tacoma really a job/shopping/service magnet for those areas? My impression of Tacoma is it’s nowadays a large suburb, and not much more than that. I can’t think of much to go to Tacoma for, and if I lived in Burien I’d be much more likely to go to Seattle or Bellevue, which have much more unique things and jobs. So are a lot of South King County residents really going to Tacoma regularly or semi-regularly, or just a few?

    The 578 originally did go to Tacoma. From Auburn its route was Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma Dome. The part west of Puyallup was deleted due to low ridership, probably during a recession. Should it be reinstated? Would this be fast enough from Auburn, or would it need a more direct route?

    1. > Would this be fast enough from Auburn, or would it need a more direct route?

       The only other route that would be faster would be to head west, but then the question is whether it makes sense to then skip federal way then. I guess if south federal way station existed then it’d be fine.

       Alternatively with the SR 167 toll lane under construction and direction access ramps the bus 578 could probably be extended to Tacoma.

    2. Tacoma:
       TONS of restaurants
       Waterfront
       Zoo & Aquarium
       Museums
       Downtown employers
       TG, Allenmore, St Joe, Mary Bridge
       Port of Tacoma
       Tacoma Community College
       UWT
       Tacoma Dome events
       Tacoma Convention Center events
       HQs: Umpqua Bank and Sound Credit Union, also Multicare
       All the amenities that suburbs don’t have a critical mass to support, but needed because Seattle is so far away.
       I, frankly, appreciate the Tacoma Public Schools approach to contracting. Points awarded heavily for sourcing labor from Pierce County, to keep money in the community.
       Lots of us can’t afford Seattle prices. 15 years ago, we wanted to buy a home in Seattle and couldn’t. We learned that Tacoma has all the same things to offer, at least for us. Thankful we didn’t choose to go north to much smaller Everett.

       Yes, a 578 tail would be wonderful. Heck, the existing routes, with transfers that don’t involve a 25 minute wait would be good too. But bus speeds compounded with 30 min layovers is too much. Can’t wait to have a working car again.

13. So the 372 is on the busy list

    Interesting since it is soon to be sacrificed in the name Of link. When uw IA in session it’s pretty busy..

    1. The 372 will be going away, but in Seattle will be replaced by the 72 on basically the same pathing, except with a bit more frequency and terminating at the 145th St station.

       North of Seattle, the 522 will go to 145th as well, and then the following year be upgraded again by becoming S3 with 10 minute headways (up from 15-20 now). The 331 will also be modified to serve Mountlake Terrace Station with 20-minute headways (up from 30 now), and extended to serve Bothell Way to cover the 372.

       All things considered, it’s a pretty good change IMO, and gets people to Link much faster than before.

       1. Yeah, here is a map of what it will eventually look like: https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/lynnwood-link/large/p3serviceproposal_areamap_lg.jpg.

          I don’t have much trouble with it in general but I would extend the 72 to Shoreline Community College (after serving Link) via 155th/160th, like the 330. This would be a considerably faster connection to the college and give a lot more people one and two seat rides to the college. This would also connect way more people on Aurora to Link. The 333 is kinda goofy. It is two routes connected into one. Very few will ever ride through the college. It runs across 145th (connecting those riders to Link) but the bulk of the riders on 145th are served by the looping 77 (which is really goofy for different reasons). Meanwhile, there will be no crossing service on 160th and the only service on 155th will be infrequent (the 345). This is one of the bigger flaws with the restructure.

          The other big flaw is the 77 (https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/lynnwood-link/pdf/routes/route77.pdf). It is basically two routes connected into one, and not very well. The better approach would be to connect the east-west part of the 77 with the 65 and then send the Lake City Way part of the 77 up 35th to the 148th Station. I believe both were previously part of the plan, but then politics got in the way.

          It is easy to blame ST for the original sin of skipping Lake City with the 522 (and future Stride line). But a lot of blame goes to Metro, for not doing what a lot of us thought was fairly obvious (e. g. run the 72 to Shoreline Community College). Sending the 522 to 145th is really not bad as long as Metro has a lot of money (and right now they don’t). But the planned network isn’t very good with or without a decent level of service in the city.

14. I’m a little surprised the 255 has appeared to hang in there despite being lopped off at both ends on the last decade…

    1. How else can you get from the northwest Eastside to Seattle? Metro can’t just leave such a large and highly-populated area out.

15. Well to get to parts of seattle it’s now
    Le it’s a 3 seat ride now. 255 to Link. Link to westlake. Another bus yobwhere you actually want to go. So the chopping of 255 had zero to do with sccess from the Eastside to swattle.

Comments are closed.